Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Calder and Hebble Navigation Bill,

New Junction Canal Bill,

Walthamstow Corporation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BENEFIT.

Mr. SANDHAM: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour whether a final decision has yet been reached in the eligibility for unemployment insurance benefit of the workers locked out in the Lancashire cotton industry?

Miss BONDFIELD: No, Sir. The Insurance Officer is submitting certain cases on appeal to the umpire, and there may be associations in other cases.

Mr. SANDHAM: In view of the fact that the producers in the cotton industry provide the employer's contribution, the employés contribution, and the State's contribution, does not the right hon. Lady think that a decision should be reached forthwith?

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour whether her attention has been called to the case of Thomas Dodson, of 154, Holystone Crescent, Heaton, Newcastle-on-Tyne, at the Heaton Employment Exchange, No. 29,898, who was a regular contributor for Unemployment Benefit for a period of six years until a recent date when, rather than apply for the Unemployment Benefit, he commenced business for himself as a jobbing bricklayer, and, having failed and lost his capital, made application to the Court of Referees and had his claim for benefit disallowed, being thus penalised because he endeavoured
to maintain himself; and whether she will give favourable consideration to this case?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am having inquiries made and will communicate the result to the hon. Member as soon as they are complete.

Mr. LAWRIE: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour if the reported statement of a member of the Stalybridge Court of Referees has been brought to her notice that 600 out of 900 cotton workers in Stalybridge had been disallowed benefit for refusing to accept domestic service; and if she will inquire into this matter and state what are the facts?

Miss BONDFIELD: My attention has been called to the Press report to this effect, and I am glad to have this opportunity of stating that it is completely erroneous. The figure of 600 was the total number of persons, men, women, boys and girls, whose claims for benefit have been disallowed in Stalybridge for all causes since 19th March, 1930. The total number of persons whose claims have been disallowed for refusing offers of employment of any sort from 19th March, 1930, to 5th January, 1931, does not exceed 53, and, of course, only some of these were refusals of domestic service.

Mr. LAWRIE: In view of the disparity between the figures in the reply and those in the question, what steps does the right hon. Lady propose to take with the member of the Court of Referees who was responsible for the statement to which wide publicity has been given?

Miss BONDFIELD: I propose to direct his personal attention to the matter.

STATISTICS.

Mr. POTTS: 2.
asked the Minister of Labour the amount paid in Unemployment Benefit for the years 1927–28, 1928–29, 1929–30, and 1930–31 to the latest available date; the amount expended upon premises, new works, etc., for the same period of years as applicable to Unemployment Benefit; and the amount expended in management of the Unemployment Insurance Fund for the same period of years?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): As the reply involves a tabular statement, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

—
1927–28.
1928–29.
1929–30.*
*1930–31 to 7th February.



£
£
£
£


1. Amount paid in unemployment benefit
30,474,045
46,730,424
45,922,536
76,640,000‡


2. Amount expended upon premises, new works, etc. (including rentals, furniture, removals, fuel,
light, water, cleaning, etc.), as applicable to Unemployment Insurance.
439,796
447,209
499,170
475,950‡


3. Amount expended on administration of Unemployment Insurance (including item 2).
4,913,576
5,325,319†
5,462,513
5,543,000‡


* Including the amounts payable by the Exchequer in respect of transitional benefit.


† £5,071,925 was paid by the Unemployment Fund, being the statutory maximum; the balance of £253,394 remained as a charge on the Exchequer.


‡ Approximate figures.

BETHNAL GREEN.

Major NATHAN: 7.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons in Bethnal Green at any convenient date in November, December, and January, 1928, 1929, 1930, and 1931,

Persons resident in the Metropolitan Borough of Bethnal Green on the Register of Employment Exchanges.


Date (middle of month).
1928.
1929.
1930.
1931.


January
…
…
…
2,800
3,271
3,390
6,989


November
…
…
…
2,911
2,647
5,049
—


December
…
…
…
2,462
2,505
5,495
—

An industrial analysis is not available for the Bethnal Green Area, bat the following Table gives for the principal industries the numbers of Insured Persons recorded as unemployed at the Shoreditch Employment Exchange.


Date.
Building.
Furniture making and Upholstering.
Road Transport other than trams and omni-buses.
Printing, Publishing and Book Binding.
Tailoring.
Distributive Trades.
Laundries, Dyeing and Dry Cleaning.
All other Industries.
Total.


23.1.28
579
471
348
253
371
411
201
2,892
5,526


26.11.28
477
390
271
209
349
563
203
2,452
4,914


17.12.28
395
389
186
211
332
428
173
2,432
4,546


21.1.29
551
899
286
277
358
659
233
3,154
6,417


25.11.29
451
451
222
213
227
579
188
2,215
4,546


16.12.29
514
514
200
184
257
504
159
2,305
4,637


27.1.30
525
1,244
285
248
296
693
207
3,098
6,596


24.11.30
742
1,770
412
361
365
1,112
427
3,896
9,085


22.12.30
723
2,047
386
338
424
1,158
411
4,117
9,604


26.1.31
899
3,076
462
389
527
1,236
483
5,164
12,236

respectively; and, by trades, the distribution of those unemployed?

Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement.

ROYAL COMMISSION (MINISTRY'S MEMORANDUM).

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 9.
asked the Minister of Labour on what information the Government Actuary based the statements regarding coal-trimmers, professional footballers, sandwichmen, and women week-end shop assistants contained in Paper No. 19 submitted to the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance?

Miss BONDFIELD: Paragraph 8 of the Paper No. 19 to which the hon. Member refers indicates that the examples are taken from a memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Labour. This memorandum will be published in due course as soon as oral evidence relating to it has been taken, and will then be obtainable from the Stationery Office in the usual way.

Mr. MALONE: Will the Minister give particulars of the coal trimmers in this memorandum?

Miss BONDFIELD: Yes.

Mr. MALONE: Does not the right hon. Lady think that the evidence has been published in a way most prejudicial and unfair to the general interests of the unemployed?

Miss BONDFIELD: No, I certainly do not.

WEEK-END ASSISTANTS.

Mr. MALONE: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour how many girls and women who have standing engagements as weekend assistants in stores have been in receipt of unemployment benefit in England and Wales in each of the weeks since 1st January; on which days they are generally employed; how many days' benefit per week have been drawn; and whether the Employment Exchanges have been offering unemployed girls and women this type of employment?

Miss BONDFIELD: Statistics giving the information desired in the first three parts of the question are not available. In so far as vacancies of this type are notified to the Employment Exchanges, they are brought to the notice of those applicants who appear to be suitable.

Mr. MALONE: If, as it is shown in the Ministry of Labour's evidence before
the Royal Commission, these women have actually been paying for a great number of years, why should the impression be created that they are getting something for nothing?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am not aware that that impression was being created.

DOMESTIC SERVICE.

Mr. MANDER: 12.
asked the Minister of Labour what steps are being taken to see that factory girls who take up domestic service do not lose their rights under the Unemployment Insurance Act?

Miss BONDFIELD: As there appears to be some misapprehension on the point, I have had a leaflet prepared, which is almost ready for issue, explaining the position in this respect, as laid down by the Unemployment Insurance Acts.

Mr. MANDER: Is this one of the matters that is being or can be considered by the Royal Commission?

Miss BONDFIELD: There is nothing to prevent it.

SHORT-TIME WORKERS.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 13.
asked the Minister of Labour the average weekly cost of benefit paid out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund during the past months to persons working on organised short time?

Miss BONDFIELD: No information is available which would enable me to state the cost of unemployment benefit paid out to persons working on organised short time.

MARRIED WOMEN, GLASGOW.

Mr. TRAIN: 16.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of married women in Glasgow who are drawing unemployment benefit while their husbands are in employment?

Miss BONDFIELD: Statistics giving the information desired are not available.

Mr. TRAIN: As this is one of the alleged abuses of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, will not the right hon. Lady take steps to get these figures?

Miss BONDFIELD: There is no power which entitles me to ask what the husband earns.

Mr. TRAIN: Will the right hon. Lady ask for powers?

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: Is it not possible to find whether they are in employment, if it is not possible to ask what they are earning?

Miss BONDFIELD: It is not in the competence of the officers to do that.

BUILDING TRADES, LANARKSHIRE.

Miss LEE: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of workers employed in any branch of the building industry who are at present registered as unemployed in the county of Lanarkshire, including Glasgow?

Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply is in the form of a table, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. TRAIN: Is the right hon. Lady aware that Glasgow is a county in itself and has nothing to do with Lanarkshire?

Following is the table:

Insured persons classified as belonging to the building industry recorded as unemployed at Employment Exchanges in Lanarkshire (including Glasgow) at 26th January, 1931:


Occupation.
Number unemployed.


Carpenters
…
1,026


Bricklayers
…
555


Masons
…
241


Slaters
…
296


Plasterers
…
352


Painters
…
1,533


Plumbers
…
496


Labourers to above
…
1,736


All other occupations
…
3,217


Total
…
9,452

WORK SCHEMES (WEST RIDING).

Mr. TOM SMITH: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour how many schemes of work for the relief of unemployment have been put forward by the West Riding County Council during the last 12 months; how many have been approved and their total capital value; and how many are still under consideration, and the present position with regard to them?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am having this information collected, and will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.

NOTIFICATION OF VACANCIES.

Mr. PHILIP OLIVER: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour what arrangements, if any, she has made with employers under Section 5 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1930, for the notification by them to Employment Exchanges of situations vacant or to become vacant; and with what associations of employers or employées she has consulted for that purpose?

Miss BONDFIELD: Although no formal arrangements have been made under the Section between my Department and associations of employers and workpeople, arrangements between employers and the Employment Exchanges, and between trade unions and the Exchanges, exist in all areas for co-operation in the filling of vacancies, and these are constantly being developed and expanded. Associations of employers and workpeople are represented on all the local employment committees which assist the placing work of the Department.

Mr. OLIVER: Are these arrangements subsequent to the Act of 1930?

Miss BONDFIELD: They have developed since.

Oral Answers to Questions — COST-OF-LIVING INDEX FIGURE.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that the cost-of-living index is calculated by taking budgets of working-class families, there will be any difficulty and, if so, of what nature in taking a similar number of budgets of non-industrial working-class families such as clerks; and whether her Department will consider the desirability of compiling two cost-of-living indices which may have appropriate reference to the classes of the community whose wages are influenced by these indices?

Miss BONDFIELD: I shall certainly give consideration to the points raised by the hon. Member, should the occasion arise.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: 11.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in calculating the index figure of the cost-of-living, the amount allowed for rent takes into account mortgage interest and repayments due from those who have had to
purchase houses; and whether any consideration is given to the rent paid by those occupying decontrolled houses?

Miss BONDFIELD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and to the second part in the affirmative.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Does the Minister appreciate that a large number of people whose wages are governed by the index figure are living in decontrolled houses, or have had to buy houses because of the impossibility of getting houses to let, and that, therefore, they are not governed by the same factors which enter into the cost-of-living figure?

Miss BONDFIELD: That is so. Owned houses have never been taken into account.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: A large number of people are in that position.

Mr. MORLEY: 17.
asked the Minister of Labour if she will issue a White Paper giving full and precise details as to the manner in which the index figures of the cost-of-living are ascertained?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am arranging for the issue of a Stationery Office publication giving this information.

Mr. P. OLIVER: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour on what basis the rent item in the official cost-of-living index is determined; and whether any attempt is made to distinguish the differing burden of local rates falling upon tenants in different parts of the country?

Miss BONDFIELD: The rent item in the cost-of-living index-number is an average based on the rents of controlled and de-controlled working class dwellings in a representative selection of large towns, and includes the amounts of local rates and water charges.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS.

Mr. DAY: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what decision he has arrived at with reference to the opening of cinema theatres and/or other places of amusement on Sundays?

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: 26.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of
the loss to charities owing to the uncertainty of the Law regarding Sunday entertainments, he will introduce a Bill forthwith to legalise Sunday charitable performances?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): I regret that I am unable to make any statement at present. I am in communication with the leaders of the other parties on this matter.

Mr. DAY: When does my right hon. Friend hope to be able to make his statement, in view of the very chaotic position existing now.

Mr. CLYNES: In view of the diversity of view on this subject, it is necessary to pursue investigations further. There are legal points on which we are not clear, and I shall make a statement as early as I possibly can.

Mr. DAY: If I repeat my question next Thursday, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to notify what the position is?

Mr. CLYNES: I should not be surprised if my hon. Friend did repeat the question on Thursday—

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Or even on Sunday.

Mr. HACKING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no less than £600 was lost to charity owing to the cancellation of one single performance last Sunday?

Mr. CLYNES: I have no information on a particular case, but I am generally aware of the losses that are incurred because of the present position of the law.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL DISEASES.

ASBESTOSIS.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: 25.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to an inquest held at Ilford, on the 11th instant, at which a woman who has been employed for 15 years in an asbestos factory at Barking was stated to have died from heart failure following bronchial pneumonia accelerated by asbestosis: and whether he can say, in view of the number of
deaths at this factory, when the employés will be brought within the provisions of the Silicosis and Asbestosis Act passed last session?

Mr. CLYNES: I have had a report on this case from the Senior Medical Inspector of Factories, who attended the inquest. A draft scheme of compensation for this disease was issued last month, together with a draft of the proposed medical scheme by which a medical board will be set up to deal with all cases of silicosis and asbestosis throughout the country. These draft schemes are now under consideration by the various employers' and workers' associations affected; and as soon as I am in possession of their views, I intend at once to review the position. I am much impressed with the urgency of this question and while it is not yet possible to fix a definite date, I am hoping to reach a final settlement by the end of next month.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the Friday following this inquest, the death of another woman was inquired into, and the verdict was that death was due to asbestosis caused by inhaling asbestos dust, which had remained in her system.

Mr. CLYNES: I have no information on the second case, but it illustrates the need for prompt action.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: I wish to give notice, this being a matter of life and death, that I shall take the opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great number of deaths have taken place in this factory through the same trouble?

Mr. CLYNES: As my reply indicates, I am doing everything possible to hasten further action on the matter.

FIBROSIS OF THE LUNGS.

Mr. MORLEY: 28.
asked the Home Secretary what progress has been made towards scheduling fibrosis of the lungs as a disease ranking for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Acts?

Mr. CLYNES: As my hon. Friend is aware, the effects on the lungs of various dusts, including coal dust, are being
investigated by an expert committee of the Medical Research Council. This committee is pursuing various lines of research, but the problems are exceedingly complicated, and I regret that-as I am advised-a considerable period must elapse before any definite conclusions can be reached.

Mr. MORLEY: Seeing that this committee was set up 12 months ago, could not the right hon. Gentleman intimate to them that the acceleration of their findings would not be altogether unpleasant?

Mr. CLYNES: In these highly technical and medical matters, in which so much has to be weighed and considered, it is inevitable that much time should be taken up, but there is no delay which can be avoided.

SILICOSIS.

Mr. HOPKIN: 32.
asked the Home Secretary if the new regulations concerning silicosis (various) are now in force?

Mr. CLYNES: If, as I assume, my hon. Friend is referring to the Various Industries (Silicosis) Amendment Scheme, 1930, which amended the definition of "silica rock," that scheme came into force on the 1st of this month.

Mr. HOPKIN: Is the regulation that the right hon. Gentleman has power to make under that scheme Order 975?

Mr. CLYNES: What I said was the Various Industries (Silicosis) Amendment Scheme, 1930.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS (DEPORTATION).

Mr. BENSON: 27.
asked the Home Secretary the number of cases in which, during the present century, deportation orders have been served on aliens for whose extradition applications had previously failed, giving particulars of the circumstances in each case?

Mr. CLYNES: I am not aware of any such cases. It is not the practice to use the procedure of deportation as a substitute for or to supplement extradition proceedings.

Mr. BENSON: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider any such attempt as unconstitutional?

Mr. CLYNES: I cannot understand how a constitutional point can arise. I have explained that it is not the practice to use one as a supplement to the other.

Oral Answers to Questions — APPLICATION FOR EXHUMATION.

Mr. MORLEY: 29.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the repeated requests of Miss May Broadbridge, of Apuldram Lane, Chichester, for the exhumation of the body of her brother for the purposes of examination; and if he will accede to these requests?

Mr. CLYNES: It would not be in accordance with practice for me to issue an exhumation licence in circumstances like those of the present case. Where what is desired is the re-opening of an inquest the law provides another course, namely, application to the High Court.

Mr. MORLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Miss Broadbridge applied to the late Attorney-General for a reopening of the inquest, and could my right hon. Friend suggest to the present Attorney-General that he should make an application to the High Court in the matter?

Mr. CLYNES: It is not for me to suggest a particular course in relation to the law. I have explained what can be done. I have explained fully the general facts of this case in a rather long letter which I hope that my hon. Friend has by this time received.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. ISAACS: 30.
asked the Home Secretary how much of the £3,234,533 quoted in the Workmen's Compensation Statistics of Compensation and Proceedings Return for 1929 [Command 3781] was paid in compensation to injured workmen and their dependants, in legal expenses and in medical expenses, respectively; and what proportion of the total premium income quoted as £5,595,229, was applied in payments to injured workmen and their dependants, excluding legal and medical expenses?

Mr. CLYNES: I regret that I am not in a position to furnish this information. In the returns made by the insurance companies to the Board of Trade, from which the figures quoted by my hon. Friend are taken, the amounts spent in compensation and in legal and medical expenses incurred in settling claims are included under the one head of Payments under Policies, and no separate figures are available.

Mr. ISAACS: Will an effort be made to get these figures in future returns, because there is a strong feeling that the medical and legal professions get a large share of what is supposed to be compensation for the workers?

Mr. CLYNES: I will see whether, without incurring any very great cost, the course suggested can be taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE.

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 31.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is yet in a position to state the results of the investigation as to conditions of pay, allowances, and promotion in the Criminal Investigation Department?

Mr. CLYNES: The question to which I referred in a previous answer on the 29th January last was that of the numbers and ranks of the Criminal Investigation Department. I have not yet received the Commissioner's recommendations on the subject.

TRAFFIC POLICE (MOTOR CARS AND UNIFORMS).

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: 35.
asked the Home Secretary what has been the cost of fitting out the new traffic police with motor cars, motor bicycles, uniforms, etc.; and were all these articles of British manufacture?

Mr. CLYNES: As regards the first part of the question, the machines and other articles of equipment or uniform are provided by the local police authorities and I am not in possession of the information for which my hon. Friend asks. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Do we understand that all the motor cars are of British manufacture?

Mr. CLYNES: So I understand.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIQUOR TRAFFIC (STATE MANAGEMENT).

Mr. THORNE: 34.
asked the Home Secretary the amount of profit, if any, for the year ended 1930, in respect of the Government-owned inns at Carlisle?

Mr. CLYNES: I would refer my hon. Friend to my Annual Report for 1929–30, which I have presented to Parliament. This shows that the profit made in Carlisle and district in that financial year was £66,689 7s. 9d.

Mr. THORNE: Would it not be a good way of finding revenue to take over the lot?

Mr. CLYNES: That would depend upon the degree of consumption.

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is that gross profit or net profit, that is to say, the profit after deducting interest and depreciation, and Income Tax, which any ordinary owner would have to pay?

Mr. CLYNES: That is a point upon which I should require notice. Perhaps the information will be found in the report referred to.

Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Carlisle and district they think they get very bad beer?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

PROVISION OF MEALS (LANCASHIRE).

Mr. SANDHAM: 36.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many free meals were given to school children in the cotton-weaving districts of Lancashire in the weeks ending 24th January and 14th February, 1931?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. Morgan Jones): It is not practicable to give precise figures for all districts of Lancashire in which cotton-weaving is carried on; but in those boroughs and county boroughs where it is the predominant industry the number of free meals given to school children was 14,905 in the week ending 24th January, and 16,819 in the week ending 7th February. Figures for the week ending 14th February are not yet available. The figures given do not cover any part of the area for which the Lancashire County Council is the authority for elementary education, as the returns submitted by that authority relate to their area as a whole and not to separate districts.

PRIVATE SCHOOLS (COMMITTEE).

Mr. SAVERY: 37.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the wide field covered by the terms of reference to the Departmental Committee now sitting to inquire into the position of private schools, he will strengthen the committee by the addition of one or more persons who are thoroughly conversant with the problems and working of such schools?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: My right hon. Friend sees no occasion for making any further appointments to the Departmental Committee on Private Schools.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate that the committee will present its report during the present Session?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I really could not say.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SCHOOL, COLWYN BAY.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: 39.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has granted recognition to the Roman Catholic school at Colwyn Bay?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: It has been decided by the Board, under Section 19 (1) of the Education Act, 1921, that the proposed Roman Catholic school at Colwyn Bay is necessary.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Denbighshire Education Committee, which has on it representatives of every party in the State, unanimously resolved to protest against the Minister's policy, and that the same decision was come to by the Federation of Welsh Local Educational Authorities, who protested against the injustice of his sanction?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: My hon. Friend has recalled a fact and he must be aware that before we decided upon this course an inquiry was held.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: Is the hon. Member aware that the conclusions come to by the Commissioner at this inquiry are regarded by competent opinion as against the weight of evidence at the inquiry.

HON. MEMBERS: Speech.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give this information privately.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply of the hon. Gentleman I beg to give notice that on an early occasion I will raise this matter on the Adjournment of the House.

SOUND-FILM APPARATUS.

Mr. DAY: 40.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has any information as to the use of any sound-film apparatus in any of the schools under his control; and can he give particulars?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: My right hon. Friend is not aware of any schools in which sound-film apparatus is in regular use, but it has been brought to his notice that experiments are being conducted at the present time, in a small number of schools in Middlesex, to investigate the educational value of sound-films, his Majesty's Inspector will submit a report on the experiment in due course.

Mr. DAY: Is the hon. Member aware that these machines are of American manufacture?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: No, I am not aware of that fact.

Mr. DAY: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries to see whether the same results cannot be obtained by British machines?

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW RELIEF.

NECESSITOUS AREAS.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 41.
asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to give any additional financial assistance by way of grant or otherwise to the necessitous areas?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I have nothing to add to my replies to the right hon. Member's questions on this subject of 27th November and 18th December last.

STAFFORDSHIRE.

Mr. McSHANE: 42.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can now state the results of his inquiry into the scales of relief drawn up and administered by the public assistance committee of the Staffordshire County Council; and
whether these scales have been or are likely to be increased?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have been in communication with the county council in the matter and have been assured that they concur in my view that relief must be adequate in all cases. I understand that while the scale has not been altered it permits a discretion which has been recently exercised in the grant of coal allowances in certain cases during the winter months.

Mr. McSHANE: While thanking the Minister for the action he has taken, I wish to ask him whether he is aware that, whenever a case receives benefit upon that, scale, a special form has to be signed in respect of it, and that this acts as a deterrent; and will he do his best to get that form abolished? Further, may I ask whether he will undertake to have the correspondence published?

Mr. GREENWOOD: It is not customary to publish correspondence between myself and a local authority while the matter is still under consideration between us.

Mr. McSHANE: Will the Minister deal with the form to which I have referred, which has to he filled up by every person who receives such assistance?

Mr. GREENWOOD: This is the customary practice of public assistance authorities, with which I have no power to interfere.

LANCASHIRE.

Mr. SANDHAM: 49.
asked the Minister of Health if he will give the amount spent in Poor Law relief in the cotton-weaving districts of Lancashire in the weeks ending 24th January and 14th February, 1931; and if he will say whether he has issued any circulars to the Poor Law authorities in Lancashire with regard to the lock-out in the industry?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am advised that the amounts spent on outdoor relief in the cotton weaving districts of Lancashire (including county boroughs) were £5,201 11s. 4d. in the week ending the 24th January and £5,347 2s. 3d. in the week ending 14th February. As regards the second part of the question, I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a letter which I addressed to the Lan-
cashire County Council on the 27th January, the terms of which were communicated to the other authorities concerned.

Mr. BROTHERS: Is this in respect of weaving only, or do the figures include both spinning and weaving?

Mr. GREENWOOD: It includes all the out-relief in the areas affected by the dispute.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

NATIONAL MATERNITY SERVICE.

Mr. FREEMAN: 43.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is yet in a position to state the approximate cost of providing a national maternity service covering the services of a doctor, midwife, and anaesthetic administration?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I regret that at present I can add nothing to the answers previously given to my hon. Friend on this subject.

Mr. FREEMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication as to when he will be able to provide the House with that information?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The question which my hon. Friend has put to me raises a complicated problem to which I cannot give an answer at present.

MENTAL HOSPITALS (PATHOLOGICAL SERVICE).

Mr. KINLEY: 48.
asked the Minister of Health whether it is the intention to set up a centralised pathological service in connection with public mental hospitals?

Mr. GREENWOOD: In some areas the local authority has provided a central laboratory for the several hospitals belonging to it. It is hoped, without prejudice to the principle of each hospital having a laboratory of its own, that such centralisation may be developed elsewhere, particularly where the laboratory service can be based on the medical school of a university. But it is not intended to attempt to set up a single central unit for this purpose.

CERERRO-SPINAL MENINGITIS.

Mr. HACKING: 59.
asked the Minister of Health in view of the recent increase
in the total number of cases of spotted fever in the country, whether he is satisfied with the precautions being taken to prevent this disease from spreading?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am advised that an increase in the number of cases of cerebro-spinal fever, or spotted fever, is usual in the early months of the year, especially when influenza is prevalent. There is every reason to believe that the local authorities and their medical officers of health are alive to the importance of urging such precautions as are practicable to prevent the spread of this disease.

Mr. HACKING: Will these precautions be advertised so that the public may know what they are?

Mr. GREENWOOD: There are other questions on the Order Paper on this subject which I think will meet the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. DAY: 60.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can state the number-of cases of cerebro-spinal meningitis that have been reported to his Department during the previous two months; and whether he can give particulars of the districts in which these fresh outbreaks have occurred?

Mr. GREENWOOD: 272 cases of this disease in civilians have been reported during the 11 weeks ended the 14th February. I will send my hon. Friend a list of the districts in which these cases occurred.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentle-man say the number of soldiers confined to barracks from this cause?

Mr. GREENWOOD: That question should be put to the Secretary of State for War.

Mr. T. SMITH: 63.
asked the Minister of Health how many cases of cerebrospinal meningitis have been reported recently in the West Riding of Yorkshire; how many deaths have occurred; and whether he is satisfied that all is being done to cope with this outbreak?

Mr. GREENWOOD: 79 cases of this disease have been reported in 20 sanitary districts in the West Riding of Yorkshire during the period from the 3rd January to the 14th February. The
number of deaths cannot yet be stated. I am advised that such preventive measures as are practicable are being taken in the districts concerned.

Mr. SMITH: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that his Department is co-operating with the medical officers of health in these localities?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Most certainly.

Mr. SMITH: Thank you.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 64.
asked the Minister of Health what action he is taking in regard to recent outbreaks of cerebro-spinal meningitis?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The action taken by my Department includes the close observation of reported cases of this disease, and the giving of advice, on request, to local authorities and medical officers of health on the isolation of patients and any practicable preventive measures. If necessary, visits are paid by medical officers of the Department to the districts affected. The type of the prevalent organism is studied in the laboratory by the pathologists of the Department, who work in co-operation with the pathologists of the Army, Navy and Air Force. I have under consideration the question of publishing a general statement relating to the occurrence of this disease.

Lieut. - Colonel HENEAGE: With regard to preventive measures, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether much progress has been made?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Do I gather that the statement will include a report from the Medical Research Council on the relationship of this disease to influenza?

Mr. GREENWOOD: What I am concerned about is the present position. We shall consult them, but it will not be their statement; it will be mine.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 65.
asked the Minister of Health if he is causing investigations to be made as to whether recent outbreaks of cerebro-spinal meningitis are due to overcrowding?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am advised that it is well established that overcrowding of persons in barracks, schools and other residential institutions favours the spread
of meningococcus infection. The existence of overcrowding in such circumstances would be investigated in any district affected, but I am informed that no notable example of such overcrowding has been discovered during the present prevalence of this disease.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Sir K. WOOD: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the present national situation and the decision that schemes involving heavy expenditure must await the return of prosperity, he proposes to suspend proceedings on any Bills now before the House which involve large national charges?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I am not aware of any Bills now before Parliament which involve heavy national charges except such as will be of an economic value.

Sir K. WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the heavy charges in connection with the Agricultural Bill, and is he really not going to take the first step that any wise man would take when he is faced with a deficit to put his affairs right?

The PRIME MINISTER: The first step that any wise man would take is that if he can get 25s. for 20s. he will spend the 20s. in order to get the 25s.

Sir K. WOOD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel very relieved at the course which the other House took yesterday?

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he can now give the full list of persons who have accepted his invitation to become members of the new Economy Committee?

The PRIME MINISTER: Not yet. Sir.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: If I put a question down early next week will the Prime Minister be able to give me an answer?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have already indicated to the hon. Member who put the first question to me some days ago that he might put down a question later, and then I will give an answer.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is it intended to put Members of Parliament on this committee?

The PRIME MINISTER: The matter is in hand, and has been in hand since the day when the Resolution was carried.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

LONDON.

Major NATHAN: 51.
asked the Minister of Health if, in view of the special problem which London presents as regards housing, he will set up a Royal Commission or select a Departmental committee for the purpose of inquiring into the position and making recommendations, with a view to improving housing conditions in London generally, and particularly in the congested areas of East London?

Mr. GREENWOOD: No, Sir. The Housing Act, 1930, placed on the London County Council the responsibility for reviewing housing conditions in London and I do not at present consider that the adoption of the hon. and gallant Member's proposal would accelerate either the provision of new houses or the clearance of slums.

Sir K. WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the London County Council have made suitable progress in connection with housing, and needs no assistance from a commission?

Mr. GREENWOOD: It is quite true that they have a programme for the next five years which is 33⅓ per cent. more than the last five years, but I am not satisfied that that is the best that they can do.

COMMITTEES.

Sir K. WOOD: 53.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has any statement to make to the House as to new proposals relating to house building; when the conference of employers, employés, and producers of raw materials is to be called by him; and if he can state the purpose of the conference and the financial expenditure that is involved?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The housing policy of the Government is contained in the Acts of 1924 and of last year. The Building Industry Committee and the Inter-Departmental Committee on the
Prices of Building Materials, formed in October, 1924, and in April, 1923, respectively, are still available for consultation, but while it has not yet become necessary for me to confer formally with either of these committees in connection with the operation of the 1930 Act, a close watch is being kept upon prices and other factors in house building.

Sir K. WOOD: Will the Minister of Health see that the Liberal spokesman of yesterday is invited to attend this committee, and present his programme in order that he may explain how houses are built without any cost to the State?

Mr. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very high price of bricks in London at the present time, and that a ring has been formed to keep up the price?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am aware that building prices generally have fallen, but I am not satisfied that they have reached the lowest possible point.

Sir K. WOOD: When are we going to have the Profiteering Bill which was promised, two years ago?

Mr. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the price of bricks went up last year?

RURAL WORKERS ACT (DEVON AND CORNWALL).

Major HARVEY: 56 and 57.
asked the Minister of Health (1) how many applications for grants under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act., 1926, have been refused by the local authorities during the last two years in the counties of Devon and Cornwall, respectively;
(2) how many applications for grants under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, have been refused by the Ministry in the last two years in the counties of Devon and Cornwall, respectively?

Mr. GREENWOOD: With the permission of the hon. and gallant Member, I will answer these questions together. Nine applications in the county of Devon and nine in the county of Cornwall have been refused by the local authorities during the last two years. I have no power of granting or refusing applications made under the Act.

Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: Can the Minister of Health give the reason for these refusals?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am afraid that I cannot without notice.

SHOPS.

Mr. L. SMITH: 62.
asked the Minister of Health how many local authorities have built shops on the building estates they are developing; whether such shops receive the building subsidy; what are their aggregate numbers; whether the local authorities concerned have to obtain official sanction in all cases before erecting such shops; and whether the loss incurred by any shops not being let becomes a charge on the rates?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I regret that it is not readily possible to ascertain how many local authorities have built shops on their housing estates, or what are the aggregate numbers of such shops. No subsidy is payable under the Housing Acts in respect of shops. The reply to the fourth and fifth parts of the question is in the affirmative.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Mr. THOMAS LEWIS: 55.
asked the Minister of Health if he is now in a position to state what action he proposes taking regarding certain types of claims for widows' pensions upon which a legal decision has recently been sought?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on the same subject on the 12th instant.

Mr. LEWIS: Did not the Court state that this was not a matter for them to, decide, but for the Ministry, and if so, why do they not get on with the job?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am afraid the question is more complicated than that.

Oral Answers to Questions — ASYLUM OFFICERS (SUPERANNUATION).

Mr. HOPKIN: 58.
asked the Minister of Health if he is now in a position to make a statement concerning the proposed new legislation for superannuation for asylum workers?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The actuarial investigation of this matter is still in progress.

Commander SOUTHBY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when this report will be received by him, and does he not think it is time that this gross injustice should be remedied?

Mr. GREENWOOD: This is not the only injustice. The Government Actuary has now received the returns, and he must have an interval of time. I should imagine that within the next month the report will be available.

Commander SOUTHBY: Because it is not the only injustice is no reason why it should remain.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Is it not a fact that only a year ago the right hon. Gentleman informed the House that the Actuary's Report was in the hands of the auditors, and that there would be no delay?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there has been no delay.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE (WAR DEBTS AND BRITISH PAYMENTS).

Mr. HANNON: 66.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the net sum due to the British Government by the French Government at the close of the War; and how much of this amount was remitted by the British Government when the final settlement was concluded?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): The net War Debt of France to this country as at 12th July, 1926-the date of the signature of the Funding Agreement-was £600,000,000. The present value as at the same date of the annuities payable under the Funding Agreement, calculated on the 5 per cent. tables, was £227,000,000. On this basis, 62 per cent. of the debt was remitted.

Mr. HANNON: Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was negotiating recently with regard to French bonds, bring this very prominent fart to the notice of the French Government?

Mr. SNOWDEN: If the hon. Member will look at the Command Paper issued,
I think, last July, containing the representations made to the French Govern-in that matter, he will find that there is reference to it.

Mr. HANNON: As this is a question of very great importance to these bondholders, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will again call the attention of the French Government to the generosity of this settlement, and ask whether they will recognise the rights of these bondholders?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am afraid that that is not the question which the hon. Member has put down.

Mr. LAMBERT: Was the settlement in 1926 made on the advice of the "money barons"?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman's leader can tell him that. With regard to the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), I am afraid it has been driven out of my head by the interjection of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert). Would he mind repeating it?

Mr. HANNON: I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would again call the attention of the French Government to the generosity of the settlement which was made by us at the time of the adjustment of our outstanding debt from France, and would he use that argument to get some concession for the bondholders?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Really, I have done all that I possibly could in this matter. If the hon. Member had been so anxious to get justice for the British taxpayer in this matter, his action would have been, perhaps, much more effective had he taken it four years ago.

Mr. HANNON: 67.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount which it was finally decided should be paid to the French Government for the use of French Railways by the British Government during the War; what was the sterling equivalent of the sum in francs demanded by the French Government at the rate of exchange at the time of settlement: and what loss was sustained by the British taxpayer by payment in excess of this rate of exchange?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I would refer the hon. Member to paragraph 5 of the British Note of 24th July, 1930, to the French Government on the subject of the claims of British holders of French Rentes issued in the United Kingdom (Command Paper 3779), in which the relevant facts are fully stated.

Mr. HANNON: May I again asl, whether this is not an argument in favour of more generous consideration of these bonds by the French Government?

Mr. SNOWDEN: That is exactly why we incorporated these facts in the Note to which I have referred.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN REPARATION PAYMENT.

Mr. POTTS: 68.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of reparation payments by Germany under the Dawes scheme for the years ended 31st August, 1929, 1930, and to the latest available date since August, 1930, expressed in British values, showing each, separate payment applicable to the British Empire, Army of Occupation, Reparation Recovery Act, and cash transfers, respectively?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: As the answer is long, and contains many figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The receipts of the British Empire in respect of German Reparation from 1st September, 1930, to 15th February, 1931 (inclusive), were as follows:



£


Sums received partly in sterling and partly in U.S.A. dollars:



(i) Through the Reparation Recovery Act procedure
4,680,500


(ii) By Cash transfer
4,309,700


(iii) Receipts from France, Italy and Belgium under The Hague Agreements in completion of United Kingdom Share in German payments
706,300



£9,696,500

£


This sum was disposed of as follows:



To Great Britain for reparation
8,022,100


To the rest of British Empire for reparation
1,259,100


Service of German 5½ per cent. Loan, 1930
406,700


Retained by the Bank for International Settlements as remuneration
8,600



£9,696,500

For statements as regards the years ended 31st August, 1929, and 31st August, 1930, I would refer the hon. Member to replies given to the hon. Member for the Eastbourne Division on the 14th November, 1929, and to the hon. Member for Cambridge Borough on the 9th December, 1930.

Oral Answers to Questions — BANKING AND CURRENCY (COMMITTEE).

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: 69.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date the committee on banking and currency was appointed; how many meetings of the committee have been held: and when its report may be expected?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The committee was appointed on the 5th November, 1929, and it has, I understand, held 69 meetings. The committee is engaged in drafting its report as rapidly as the exceptional difficulty and complexity of the subject matter allows, but I cannot say when it will be completed.

Major NATHAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman impress upon the chairman of the committee the keen anxiety of the House to receive the report in ample time for full consideration before the Budget is opened?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The chairman of the committee is well aware of the anxiety that exists for the receipt of this report, and I do not think it is necessary for me to make further representations.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX (FOREIGN INVESTMENTS).

Sir COOPER RAWSON: 70.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in order
to improve the demand for home industrials and consequently benefit unemployment by transverting British capital invested in foreign stocks to home industrials, he will consider the imposition of a higher rate of tax on all incomes derived from foreign investments and a reduction of tax in respect of incomes derived from investments in Great Britain, the Dominions and Colonies, and from investments in businesses established in foreign countries where 50 per cent. or more of their working expenses represent British labour and materials?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I doubt if the hon. Member's suggestion is practicable, but in any case I could not anticipate the Budget statement.

Sir C. RAWSON: Does not the right lion. Gentleman appreciate that I am not asking him to anticipate his Budget statement, but to consider this proposal, which is, apparently, a new one?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not think it is a new one. Of course, I am always prepared to consider any proposal that is submitted to me.

Captain EDEN: Are not investors in foreign industrials exempt from Stamp Duty in this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Commander SOUTHBY: 73.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when the Royal Commission now inquiring into the question of the Civil Service will make a report?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) on 6,11 November last.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

MEAT (GRADING AND MARKING).

Mr. PYBUS: 74.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if any of the cattle imported from the Irish Free State and killed at Birkenhead are graded and marked English or in the same manner as beef produced in Great Britain?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): Cattle imported from any part of Ireland and killed in this country are graded and marked with the home-killed mark.

Mr. PYBUS: If cattle imported from one Dominion, the Irish Free State, can be marked "English," is there any logical reason why Australian or New Zealand meat should not be so marked?

Dr. ADDISON: Those cattle are imported alive.

Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: Is it not, a fact that Canadian cattle imported into Glasgow are killed on the quays there?

Dr. ADDISON: There are a great many very intricate questions involved with regard to preventing substitution. I shall be glad to inform my hon. Friends of the details, if they wish me to do so, but I cannot give them in answer to an ordinary question.

Mr. PYBUS: If an Irishman were imported into England, would he become an Englishman supposing he were killed here?

Mr. PYBUS: 75.
asked the Minister of Agriculture for the last convenient period the total number of carcases of beef which were graded by Government graders; and how many of them were classed in each of the three grades select, prime, and good?

Dr. ADDISON: In 1930, 254,569 sides of home-killed and Scotch-killed beef were so graded and marked, namely, 144,524 as "Select," 105,404 as "Prime," and 4,571 as "Good."

Mr. PYBUS: Is it not a fact that, the moment you start grading meat, it all becomes of superior quality?

Dr. ADDISON: No; the fact that there are three grades, and that only 144,000 out of 254,000 came in the first grade proves that that is not so.

Mr. PYBUS: Is it not the fact that the second grade is by far the most numerous; and, if that be so, is it not the fact that, when the attempt to grade the meat is made, it cannot be graded in one or two grades, with the result that it is not graded at all?

SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 76.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has any further information to give the House with regard to the sugar-beet industry?

Mr. L. SMITH: 83.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to announce that all the 18 beet-sugar factories have accepted the Government's recent proposal; and if he can say what are the prospects with regard to the acreage to be grown during the coming season?

Dr. ADDISON: It is too early for the factory companies to give a reliable estimate of the acreage they expect to contract this year. The Government's offer has been accepted in respect of 12 of the 18 beet-sugar factories, and the Beet-Sugar Committee of the National Farmers Union has recommended the acceptance of contracts under it.

Captain MACDONALD: Have negotiations with the Anglo-Dutch group broken down, and have they agreed to accept the terms offered by the other factory groups?

Dr. ADDISON: The negotiations are not being continued, but the Anglo-Dutch group decided to make quite a different offer. They were not prepared to come into line with the other factories.

Mr. HANNON: Is the Anglo-Dutch group going to spoil the whole scheme? Cannot some pressure be brought to bear upon them?

Dr. ADDISON: I have done everything I could to bring pressure to bear upon them. If the hon. Member can suggest anything more, I shall be glad to know.

Captain MACDONALD: Surely some pressure can be brought on them to bear part of the burden that the farmers have to bear?

Sir H. SAMUEL: 85.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what has been the total cost to the taxpayer of the beet-sugar subsidy up to the present time; what further sum is likely to be expended in the future; whether the supplementary, arrangement recently announced will involve any addition to the total commitment; and, if so, of what amount?

Dr. ADDISON: The total amount of subsidy paid on home-grown beet sugar and molasses from the commencement of the operation of the Act up to the 16th February, 1931, was £22,115,727 0s. 6d. It is not possible at this date to give reliable estimates of the probable subsidy payments in the remaining three years of the subsidy period, as many unknown factors influence the position, such as the acreage of beet, the yield per acre and the sugar content of the roots. The recently announced abatement in the reduction of the subsidy due next October will involve a fall from 13s. to 7s. 9d. per cwt. of sugar, instead of from 13s. to 6s. 6d. as under the Act, the total abatement representing a sum of about £200,000. As the right hon. Member will recollect, however, this special concession will be deducted, in the event of sugar prices rising substantially, from the normal subsidy which will be due in the last two years of the subsidy period.

Mr. LAMBERT: How much of this £22,000,000 went to the farmers and how much to the factories?

Dr. ADDISON: I should require notice of that question.

Sir W. BRASS: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea how many people have been employed directly and indirectly as a result of the subsidy?

Dr. ADDISON: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a question?

Captain MACDONALD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of that subsidy has been paid to the Anglo-Dutch group?

Dr. ADDISON: I should require notice.

EMPLOYMENT.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: 77.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many of the 23,093 agricultural workers who have lost their employment upon holdings above one acre since the present Government took office he anticipates will be re-employed before the end of the current year?

Dr. ADDISON: I regret this information is not available.

HOME-GROWN BARLEY (BEER DUTY)

Mr. O. LEWIS: 78.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Argentine Government has issued a decree placing a tax of six centavos a quart on beer made from less than 50 per cent. of Argentine barley; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made as to what effect similar taxation in this country would have on the demand for homegrown barley for brewing purposes?

Dr. ADDISON: I am aware of the decree referred to. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

MARKETING BILL.

Mr. BLINDELL: 79.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if be will state the number of agricultural organisations, representing the producers of products affected by the Agricultural Marketing Bill, which have forwarded to him resolutions in support of the Bill, giving the names of such organisations?

Dr. ADDISON: It is by no means the rule for agricultural associations to forward to my Department any resolutions that they may pass in favour of specific legislation and in the case of local bodies it is unusual for them to do so, but I am informed that a number of branches of the National Farmers' Union and other bodies have passed resolutions supporting the principle of the Bill.

Mr. BLINDELL: In view of the fact that the Department have been engaged in propaganda with regard to this Bill, did not the right hon. Gentleman anticipate that a large number of agricultural organisations would express their support of the Measure?

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question, which is, how many have been forwarded to him?

Dr. ADDISON: I have given the best answer I could. I can if necessary, if they will give me their permission, give names. There is a considerable number.

Mr. REMER: Is there any objection to stating the number?

Dr. ADDISON: Not the slightest, but, of course, it is not usual.

RIVER NENE CATCHMENT BOARD.

Mr. BLIND ELL: 80.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether there are special reasons for his decision to appoint a member of the Holland County Council and a member of the Hunts County Council to serve alternately each year upon the River Nene Catchment Board; and will he, in order to secure continuity of service, give the Holland County Council at least one permanent representative upon the board?

Dr. ADDISON: The basis of county representation on a catchment board is rateable value. The estimated rateable value of the Nene Catchment Area is £1,781,000, of which Holland and Huntingdon account for £54,000 and £37,000, respectively. The total number of members to be appointed by county councils is 16, so that the average rateable value per member is £111,000 or more than twise the rateable value of that portion of Holland which is within the catchment area. I regret, therefore, that I am unable to agree that the Holland County Council should have the right to appoint a permanent representative, and I consider that the proposal that Holland and Huntingdon should alternately appoint a member is the best practicable method of giving both counties some representation on the catchment board.

Mr. BLINDELL: Is it going to be the right hon. Gentleman's usual practice with these county councils to give them representation upon the catchment board in alternate years, and, if so, does he expect that such representation will be of any service to the board at any time at all?

Dr. ADDISON: My practice is to do the best I can under difficult circumstances.

Mr. BLINDELL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be a wiser procedure either to appoint a member from the Huntingdon County Council or from the Holland County Council?

CATCHMENT AREA BOARDS.

Mr. LEES: 81.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give the names of the catchment area boards which have now been fully constituted under the Land Drainage Act, 1930, and the names of the individuals on those
boards, together with an indication of those boards which have already met?

Dr. ADDISON: Twenty-two catchment boards have been constituted, of which nine have held their first meeting. I am sending my hon. Friend a list of these boards, the total number of the members on which is 405. When the remainder of the 47 boards scheduled under the Act have been completed, I hope to issue a White Paper giving the names of the members.

WAGES.

Mr. LEES: 82.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is prepared, in view of the proposed reduction of agricultural workers' wages in Suffolk to 28s. per week, to introduce legislation giving full power to the Central Agricultural Wages Board to deal with such questions?

Dr. ADDISON: I will carefully consider my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I am afraid that such legislation is impracticable at present.

Mr. LEES: Does the Minister not consider—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is asking the Minister his opinion, which is not in order at Question Time.

Mr. LEES: On a point of Order. How does it come that a question to a Minister is entirely out of order when two hours were wasted last night?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am dealing with the present time and not with last night.

Mr. LEES: Seeing that the Government have found time to deal with certain Bills, cannot they bring in a Bill to introduce a central wages board and give it the power it had in 1917?

Dr. ADDISON: If my hon. Friend will read the answer, he will see that I say I will consider the suggestion, but there is no time for further legislation.

Mr. LEES: 84.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that the Suffolk Agricultural Wages Committee have decided to reduce the agricultural workers' wages to 28s. per week; and what action he proposes to take?

Dr. ADDISON: I understand that the Suffolk Agricultural Wages Committee have decided to issue a notice of proposal
to reduce the minimum rates of wages as stated. Before the proposal can be made effective, however, a period of 14 days must elapse from the date of the notice, during which time any objections can be lodged for the committee's consideration.

Mr. LEES: Will the Minister, if the committee confirm their proposed rate of 28s. per week, use his powers under Section 6 of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act to call upon the committee to consider the matter again?

Dr. ADDISON: Perhaps my hon. Friend will defer that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS.

Mr. THORNE: 87.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government has considered the report of the delegation on industrial conditions that visited Canada and the United States of America in 1927?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): The report in question is one for which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is responsible, but, if there are any parts of it to which my hon. Friend particularly wishes to refer as possibly concerning the Board of Trade, I shall be glad to look further into the matter.

Mr. THORNE: Does my right hon. Friend's Department deal with the important part of the report that relates to the building trades?

Mr. GRAHAM: No, that is not for my Department. The whole subject of industrial relations was really raised by the report.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC BUILDINGS, EDINBURGH.

Sir PATRICK FORD: 90.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the proposed Treasury grant of £50,000 towards the purchase of the island site at the top of Bank Street, Edinburgh, for the erection of a new sheriff court-house, whether his attention has been drawn to the plea of the Lord Provost that that site be used for new police and other municipal buildings, thereby releasing in exchange a site cap-
able of large future expansion for the new national library on the east side of Parliament Square and contiguous with the Law Courts and present advocates' library, which action would in turn permit of the retention of the present advocates' library for the legal part of the new national library and the retention of the present sheriff court-house as such subject to reconditioning; and whether, in view of the admitted need for economy and the difference of at least £70,000 between the cost of such reconditioning and the cost of the erection of a new sheriff courthouse, the Government will take steps to secure a reconsideration of the decision of the national library trustees, with a view to the adoption of the Lord Provost's plan based on the detailed recommendations of the Edinburgh Architectural Association?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): I am aware of the circumstances, but I must not be taken as accepting the estimate of saving implied in the question. I understand that the national library trustees are not prepared to revise the decision arrived at by them and made public in 1928, and reaffirmed at a special meeting on the 5th instant. The Government would not feel justified in exercising pressure on the trustees in a matter which is primarily their responsibility.

Sir P. FORD: Cannot the Government have some say in the matter of the site as well as in the matter of the grant, and is it not really the Government's duty to the whole nation, as well as to the trustees, to reconsider this matter?

Mr. BARR: In view of what is put rightly enough in the question—the admitted need for economy—could it not be enjoined upon Members to shorten their questions?

Mr. MATHERS: If economy is to be the watchword, is there not here, in the question, an opportunity of exercising it now?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE (CLERICAL APPOINTMENTS).

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: 91.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the appointment since 1925 of 11,000 tem-
porary clerks to the general and departmental clerical class, 2,143 of whom were appointed without passing a competitive examination, he will give clerical appointments to the Post Office clerks who qualified at the 1926 competitive examination but have not been appointed?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Viant): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply on this subject which I gave last Tuesday to the hon. Member for Crewe (Mr. Bowen).

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the very serious dissatisfaction there is at the Post Office?

Mr. VIANT: We are quite aware of that, but at the moment I have nothing to add to my previous reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD EXPENDITURE.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: 92.
asked the Minister of Transport how many and which counties did not spend up to their estimates on road improvement in 1930?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I regret that the information asked for by the hon. 117 ember is not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECCLESIASTICAL ESTATES, DURHAM (WAGES).

Mr. LAWTHER: 93.
asked the hon. Member for Central Leeds, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, how many men were employed on their estates at Stanhope, in the county of Durham, and the wages paid?

Mr. DENMAN (Second Church Estates Commissioner): Four men are permanently employed at daily wage rates of 9s. 6d. for one, and 7s. for each of the other three, and a fifth, no longer able-bodied, receives 5s. per day. There are three temporary employés on seasonal work each at a wage of 7s. per day.

Mr. LAWTHER: Can my hon. Friend say whether or not the Ecclesiastical Commissioners agree that this is a wage commensurate with their high ideals?

Mr. DENMAN: It is commensurate with the wages paid by the best employers in the locality.

Mr. LAWTHER: 94.
asked the hon. Member for Central Leeds as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, if he will state the wages that have been and are being paid to boys at 14 years of age, and the wages for each year up to the age of 21 on their estates in Durham County?

Mr. DENMAN: The only boys directly employed by the Commissioners are on temporary engagements for light work in connection with replanting in the woods and their daily wages ate from 2s. 6d. to 3s. 6d.

Mr. LAWTHER: Can my hon. Friend say whether or not these wages are in keeping with the worst paid wages?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (ANNUNCIATORS).

Mr. MANDER: 86.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if he will consider the advisability of erecting an annunciator in the Tea Room for the convenience of Members?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): I must refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) on the 20th November, 1929. I am still of the same opinion.

Mr. MANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to make inquiries through the usual channels in regard to this matter?

Mr. LANSBURY: If the persons acquainted with the usual channels desire this to be done, I will inquire of the proper authority in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — Captain MALCOLM CAMPBELL.

Mr. HACKING: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department whether he is yet in a position to state the nature of the official welcome to be given to Captain Malcolm Campbell?

Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): In consultation with my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Transport, I have arranged that we shall jointly receive Captain Malcolm Campbell on behalf of His Majesty's Govern-
ment in Westminster Hall at 4.5 p.m. to-morrow, Friday afternoon. Every effort is being made to provide the utmost accommodation and for this purpose the whole space of the Great Hall will be placed at the disposal of the public, who will be admitted without tickets.

Mr. CHARLETON: May I ask my hon. Friend whether he has noticed that the patriotic newspapers are giving more publicity to Charlie Chaplin than to the hero of whom we are speaking?

Mr. LEES: Is there to be no official recognition of men who have worked 50 years down the coal mines? Are they not heroes?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY (DISCHARGES, DARTON).

Mr. POTTS: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Mines (1) whether he is aware that large numbers of workmen at Messrs. Fountain and Burnley Collieries situated in the Darton area, Yorkshire, are idle arising upon quota allocation allotment fixture under the South Yorkshire District Scheme provided for under the Coal Mines Act, 1930; and
(2) whether the firm have appealed to the umpire; and if so, date of appeal and possible date of hearing?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): I have seen statements in the Press that men have been discharged and others placed on part-time and allegations that this action is due to the operation of the quota. It is not possible to argue this within the limits of an answer to a question especially as I have received only a few minutes' notice that the question would be asked. In reply to the second part the owners of the pits have a right of appeal to the responsible committee, and from them to arbitration if necessary. I am informed that these rights have not yet been exercised probably because the owners were awaiting the result of a case in the High Court in which judgment was given last Friday.

SALVATION ARMY BILL.

Mr. FRANK SMITH: I desire, first of all, to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to raise a
matter concerning the Second Reading of the Salvation Army Bill yesterday. The reason for my asking this permission is that undoubtedly a most unfortunate misunderstanding occurred in connection with it. [An HON. MEMBER: "On your part!"] I am, of course, not questioning your Ruling regarding the decision which you gave, as that would be manifestly improper, but I want to advance reasons to show that the circumstances—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. SPEAKER: I did not know that the hon. Member was going to make a speech. I thought that he was going to ask me a question.

Mr. SMITH: I certainly wish, and I assumed that you would desire it, to offer reasons for asking the question. However, I will ask one or two questions. The first question is, whether the orderly confusion which is connected with the introduction of Private Bills—when I say "orderly confusion" I mean the incoming of hon. Members after prayers instead of before prayers—and also the fact that there was a series of machine gun like calls of "No!" "No!" "No!" would not justify one in asking whether these were not the reasons why our objection to the Bill did not reach your ears. In view of the fact that objection was raised and that I am supported in that statement by other hon. Members, would not that have justified a re-putting of the Question in order that an unfortunate misunderstanding should not have governed the matter when it came before the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: I certainly could not admit that at the time of Private Business there is "orderly confusion." I will not admit that for a moment. As regards the question put to me, I can but repeat what I said yesterday, that, in spite of giving ample time after the reading of the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill, if any objection was made it was utterly inaudible to me when I put the Motion for the Second Reading. In these circumstances, I cannot go back upon the Ruling that I gave.

Mr. SMITH: With great respect, is it not within the memory of hon. Members that where it has been pointed out to you that an unfortunate misunderstanding has
arisen you have on other occasions allowed the Question to be re-put in order that no doubt might arise?

Mr. SPEAKER: If there have been cases where a question has been put again after the voices have been collected, it must be very rare, and I do not think that it is a precedent that ought to be followed. I do not propose to follow it on this occasion.

Mr. SMITH: In view of the fact that a misunderstanding did arise, is there no way in which you can give Members of this House an opportunity to exercise their right in raising objections to the matter under review?

Mr. SPEAKER: If hon. Members have any objection to the Bill, they can raise it in the usual way on the Committee stage.

Mr. E. BROWN: Is it not the command to "watch and pray"? Hon. Members may have prayed, but they did not watch.

Mr. SMITH: In reply to the hon. Member, I may say that I not only watched and prayed, but I spoke also. May I ask whether it is reasonable for the hon. Member to take advantage of the situation in order to satisfy his own opinion?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: Can the Prime Minister say what business will be taken next week and what business will be taken to-night in the event of the Motion on the Order Paper being carried?

The PRIME MINISTER: I will answer the second question first. We propose to take only the business that has been announced—the first four items on the Order Paper. With regard to the busi-

ness for next week, it may seem rather a formidable list of Supplementary Estimates, but a great many of them have no substance.

On Monday, the following Supplementary Estimates will be taken in Committee: Labour and Health Buildings; Revenue Buildings; Royal Parks; Public Buildings, Great Britain; Public Buildings, Overseas—that is a revised Estimate; Works and Buildings, Northern Ireland. We shall also take the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill, Third Reading.

Tuesday: Supplementary Estimates: House of Commons; Government Hospitality Fund; Public Works Loan Commission; Law Charges; Rates on Government Property; Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions; and Report stage of the Votes taken on the 19th and 23rd February.

Wednesday: Supplementary Estimates: Beet-Sugar Subsidy, Great Britain; Old Age Pensions; Stationery and Printing; Diplomatic and Consular Services; Australian Zinc Concentrates; and Report of Estimates taken on the 24th February.

Thursday: Supplementary Estimates: Ministry of Pensions and outstanding Votes.

Friday: Private Members' Bills.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In the event of time being available, will other Orders be taken?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the Rouses)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 141.

Division No. 156.]
AYES.
[3.59 p.m.


Adamson. Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Batey, Joseph
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Benson, G.
Buchanan, G.


Alpass, J. H.
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Burgess, F. G.


Arnott, John
Blindell, James
Cameron, A. G.


Aske, Sir Robert
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Bowen, J. W.
Charieton, H. C.


Ayles, Walter
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Chater, Daniel


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Bromfield, William
Cluse, W. S.


Barnes, Alfred John
Brooke, W.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.


Barr, James
Brothers, M.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour


Cowan, D. M.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lathan, G.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Daggar, George
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Romeril, H. G.


Dallas, George
Lawrence, Susan
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Dalton, Hugh
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Rowson, Guy


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Day, Harry
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leach, W.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Duncan, Charles
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Sanders, W. S.


Ede, James Chuter
Lees, J.
Sandham, E.


Edge, Sir William
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sawyer, G. F.


Edmunds, J. E.
Lindley, Fred W.
Scott, James


Egan, W. H.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Scrymgeour, E.


Elmley, Viscount
Logan, David Gilbert
Scurr, John


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Longbottom, A. W.
Sexton, Sir James


Foot, Isaac
Longden, F.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Freeman, Peter
Lowth, Thomas
Sherwood, G. H.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lunn, William
Shield, George William


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
McElwee, A.
Shillaker, J. F.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
McKinlay, A.
Shinwell, E.


Gill, T. H.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Gillett, George M.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Simmons, C. J.


Glassey, A. E.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Gossling, A. G.
McShane, John James
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Gould, F.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sitch, Charles H


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
March, S.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Marcus, M.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Markham, S. F.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Groves, Thomas E.
Marley, J.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Marshall, Fred
Snell, Harry


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Mathers, George
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Matters, L. W.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Maxton, James
Sorensen, R.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Melville, Sir James
Stamford, Thomas W.


Harbord, A.
Millar, J. D.
Stephen, Campbell


Hardle, George D.
Mills, J. E.
Strauss, G. R.


Harris, Percy A.
Montague, Frederick
Sullivan, J.


Haycock, A. W.
Morley, Raiph
Sutton, J. E.


Hayday, Arthur
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Hayes, John Henry
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Thurtle, Ernest


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Tillett, Ben


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Herriotts, J.
Murnin, Hugh
Toole, Joseph


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Tout, W. J.


Hopkin, Daniel
Noel Baker, P. J.
Townend, A. E


Hore-Beilsha, Leslie.
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Vaughan, David


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Oldfield, J. R.
Viant, S. P.


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Wallace, H. W.


Isaacs, George
Palin, John Henry
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Jenkins, Sir William
Paling, Wilfrid
Wellock, Wilfred


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Palmer, E. T.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Johnston, Thomas
Perry, S. F.
Westwood, Joseph


Jones, F. Llewellyn (Flint)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Pole, Major D. G.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Potts, John S.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Price, M. P.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Kelly, W. T.
Pybus, Percy John
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Wise, E. F.


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Wood, Major McKenzle (Banff)


Kinley, J.
Raynes, W. R.



Knight, Holford
Richards, R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles


Lang, Gordon
Ritson, J.
Edwards.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Bullock, Captain Malcolm


Albery, Irving James
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Butler, R. A.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bird, Ernest Roy
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Campbell, E T.


Atkinson, C.
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Carver, Major W. H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Boyce, Leslie
Castle Stewart, Earl of


Balniel, Lord
Brass, Captain Sir William
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Briscoe, Richard George
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)


Beaumont, M. W.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I d'., Hexham)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Christle, J. A.


Berry, Sir George
Buchan, John
Cobb, Sir Cyril




Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hurd, Percy A.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Iveagh, Countess of
Salmon, Major I.


Colman, N. C. D
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Samuel, A. M, (Surrey, Farnham)


Cranborne, Viscount
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Lewis, Oswald (Coichester)
Savery, S. S.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lymington, Viscount
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macquisten, F. A.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Meller, R. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Ferguson, Sir John
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Fermoy, Lord
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Tinne, J. A.


Fielden, E. S.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Train, J.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Ganzoni, Sir John
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
O'Connor, T. J.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Warrender, Sir Victor


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Penny, Sir George
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Wayland, Sir William A.


Hanbury, C.
Ramsbotham, H.
Wells, Sydney R.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Hartington, Marquess of
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Remer, John R.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Haslam, Henry C.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)
Womersley, W. J.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell



Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ross, Ronald D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Sir Frederick Thomson and Major




the Marquess of Titchfield.


Question put, and agreed to.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Mr. Millar; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Frederick Hall further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Agricultural Marketing Bill): Sir Harry Hope; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. R. W. Smith.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

GILLINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1931.

Estimates presented,—for the Navy for the year 1931 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

AIR ESTIMATES, 1931.

Estimates presented,—for the year 1931 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to ancient monuments." [Ancient Monuments Bill [Lords].]

ANCIENT MONUMENTS BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to he printed. [Bill 95.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEILENTARY
ESTIMATE, 1930.

CLASS II.

COLONIAL AND MIDDLE EASTERN SERVICES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £400,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for sundry Colonial and Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain Non-effective Services and Grants-in-Aid.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): I have to ask the Committee to approve of a Supplementary Estimate for £400,000, the items of which Members have before them. The first item is for a grant in aid of the expenses of the local administrations and of unemployment relief grants for certain West Indian Colonies. The necessity for these grants arises mainly as a consequence of the serious depression in the sugar industry. The West, Indian Colonies concerned are those which depend mainly on sugar. The additional sum for Dominica, however, amounting to £14,500, is required on account of the recent hurricane which affected Dominica alone.
I do not think it will be expected that I should go once again into the question of the conditions of the sugar industry, for there is very little more of a general nature to be said than was said in March last year, when there was a full discussion on Lord Olivier's report, and on the Government's action in regard to it. Subsequent developments have been indicated in the two Command Papers 3705 and 3745 containing correspondence between the Government and the various Colonies affected, and no doubt Members who are interested in the subject have had these Papers. Although our own home position is difficult, His Majesty's Government felt that it was necessary and desirable to deal with the serious situation in the West Indies by means
of measures for the substantial alleviation of distress among the population as it arose, and by such assistance to particular colonies as is possible by other methods. In pursuance of this policy, it has been found necessary to start relief work in British Guiana upon a considerable scale, and in Antigua and St. Kitts upon a relatively small scale. Full information with regard to these works has been already laid before the House in the Command Paper to which I have just referred.
As regards British Guiana in particular, details of relief work in contemplation were given in the Governor's despatch of 4th July and the Secretary of State's despatch of 12th September, which were published in Cd. 3705. The sum of £112,000 now provided as a Supplementary Estimate represents that part of the total of £125,000 referred to in the Secretary of State's despatch as estimated to be expended during the current financial year. In addition, we have felt it necessary to provide for a loan of £50,000 in aid of the ordinary Budget of the Colony. British Guiana, as many hon. Members know, has no reserves, and is heavily indebted both by way of funded debt and unfunded advances from the Crown Agents, and it has become absolutely necessary to transfer part of those advances to the Imperial Treasury from the Crown Agents, who were overburdened with them. It will be noticed that a portion of the grant of £112,000 will be in the form of a loan. This portion, which will amount, probably, to a little less than £40,000, is for the improvement of works on sugar estates mentioned in the despatch of the Secretary of State to which I have already referred. In connection with the repayment of this loan the Legislative Council of the Colony passed a resolution undertaking to impose a special form of taxation affecting the sugar industry if and when the industry is more prosperous. This taxation will take the form of an export duty, to come into force when sugar is commanding a favourable price. But it is not proposed to specify any particular price at present.

Mr. HURD: An export duty on sugar?

Dr. SHLELS: Yes. The proceeds of this tax are to be allocated as to one-half for the repayment to the Imperial
Treasury of the assistance now afforded to the estates, and as to the other half for the creation of a fund to aid the industry when necessary. The Governor has expressed his thanks and those of the sugar producers for the assistance which it is intended to render in this matter, and he remarks that the special assistance should undoubtedly prove of great value to labour on the estates both now and in the future. It must be admitted that the prospect of repayment of this loan is remote, but the sugar producers have shown great readiness to accept all reasonable obligations in this matter, and the funds provided will enable part-time work to be given to a considerable number of persons who would otherwise be unemployed.

Earl WINTERTON: May I ask the Under-Secretary a question—it will probably avoid the necessity of my having to trouble the Committee by a speech later on—whether some of this money will be devoted for the purpose of preventing malaria on sugar estates? I understand that in a recent report it was stated that the health of the workers, especially of the Indians employed in the sugar plantations, would be greatly improved if some steps were taken in this direction. Can the Under-Secretary tell us whether anything has been done?

Dr. SHIELS: I should be very sorry if the satisfactory nature of my answer deprived the Committee of hearing a speech from the Noble Lord, but it is true part of the money is to be devoted to land drainage, which the Noble Earl knows is important in the prevention of malaria in these sugar plantations.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: There is no period fixed for repayment.

Dr. SHIELS: No. Passing from British Guiana to the smaller islands, Dominica, after passing through a period of some financial difficulty due to a disease of the lime trees, was rapidly getting back to a position of paying its way when it was struck by the severe hurricane of 1928, which was followed, before recovery was complete, by the equally severe hurricane in 1930. Although Dominica does not grow any sugar it has, in common with most other places, suffered from the general depression in trade. That depression has
abated a little and in the absence of any further serious calamity the prospects of the island seem to be quite satisfactory. The additional grants to St. Lucia and Antigua may be regarded as entirely due to the sugar situation resulting in a serious loss of revenue which would not be met by any possible economies. As regards Antigua, while the sugar situation is the main factor the position has also been aggravated by a severe drought which lasted for nearly a year and in St. Kills by the cotton boll worm. In Antigua the sugar crop for next season is expected to be only half as much as in the year which has just finished. These figures might seem to indicate an unhopeful condition of things, but there is another side. A comprehensive development scheme for £600,000 is being undertaken in the Caribbean sugar colonies, and of that amount the Colonial Development Fund is contributing in grants and loans nearly £300,000. The possibility of new kinds of crops is being explored and research is being helped by the Empire Marketing Board; and there is good evidence of local courage and initiative so we need not be pessimistic. That is all I propose to say upon that Vote.

Mr. HANNON: Before the Under-Secretary leaves that Vote, can he give us any indication of the precise terms of the Treasury in connection with the loan of £50,000 for British Guiana?

Dr. SHIELS: If the hon. Member will be good enough to wait until I have am opportunity of replying to the discussion I will give him the particulars. What I propose to do is to take a note of the various points raised in the Debate and deal with them in my reply. The next Vote is for Iraq, and comprises two items, D1 and D8 amounting to in all to £33,000. The first item, £11,000, is a purely military item and it only comes through these Estimates for technical reasons. The £11,000 is made up of two amounts, first, an item of £1,000 for the additional cost of the British forces situate in Iraq over the ordinary cost of the same forces if stationed at home. This amount is payable to the Air Ministry. In the original Estimate £30,000 was the sum allotted for capital works services, mainly, the reconditioning of buildings which are in a dilapidated
state. The Air Ministry now estimate that the expenditure on these services will amount to £31,000, or £1,000 in excess of the provision made in the Estimate. That is the amount making up the first item.
The second amount, for £10,000, is the additional sum required to meet the balance of the cost of Indian troops previously employed in Iraq, and this amount is payable to the Government of India. The last Indian battalion left Iraq in 1928. It will be seen that this figure of £10,000 represents an agreement on claims which have been outstanding for some time and which have only recently been presented by the Government of India. It has no relation to any recent activities in Iraq. Those two amounts of £1,000 and £10,000 make up the first item of £11,000. The second item in sub-head D 8 is a sum of £22,000 for the acquisition of land adjoining the residency. At the moment an Arab village is situated close to the residency, dominating the ground and buildings. The existence of this densely inhabited and insanitary quarter in such close proximity constitutes a menace to the health of the persons living in the Residency buildings. The provision of £22,000 will enable the Government to acquire the land on which the Arab quarter is situated and provides for the demolition and clearance of the site. Apart from other considerations the best sanitary opinion holds that a minimum distance of 440 yards is advisable between European and native occupied dwellings if the ordinary risks of malaria and other mosquito and fly-borne diseases are to be reduced to reasonable proportions. The site with the assistance of the Iraq Government can now be acquired at a reasonable figure and, having regard to the increase in the value of property in Bagdad, it is confidently anicipated that it will increase in value during the course of the next few years.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Can the hon. Member say why the residency was built there at all?

Dr. SHIELS: I am sorry, but I cannot help the hon. Member on that point. I have no responsibility in the matter. It is now proposed to build a house for the Counsellor and one secretary of the High Commissioner's staff on the site. At
present the staff is scattered over Bagdad; three of the secretaries live more than two miles from the Residency, which is inconvenient and undesirable. That is all I need say on that Vote.
The next Supplementary Estimate I have to put before the Committee is in respect of Palestine and Transjordan. The Supplementary Estimate is necessitated particularly by the following causes, first, the provision of additional defence forces and, secondly, the economic depression which has affected Palestine in common with other agricultural producing countries. As a result of these causes it is not possible for Palestine to balance its budget without some assistance in the way of a redistribution of the increase defence costs as between Palestine and His Majesty's Government. This Supplementary Estimate indicates the rearrangements which have been made. In order however to ensure that no undue or unnecessary burden should fall upon Imperial funds arrangements have been made by which the expenditure in Palestine is to be subject to strict scrutiny by the Treasury as well as by the Colonial Office.
It would not be in order for me in presenting and discussing this Supplementary Estimate to go into questions of policy or to deal with the White Paper or the Mandate, but I desire to say a word or two about the items themselves. First in regard to the permanent accommodation for the two battalions. His Majesty's Government have decided to retain in Palestine for the present two battalions of infantry. In addition to these, two squadrons of aircraft and four sections of armoured cars are stationed in Palestine and Transjordan, and a Royal Army Service Corps unit with suitable transport has recently been sent there with a view of avoiding the present expensive system of hiring transport. The strength of the garrison will come under review annually. The provision for the accommodation of these troops, therefore, has been made under Defence E1; to which I direct the attention of the Committee. The sum asked for under this head is £42,000, and of this sum it is estimated that £30,000 will be spent up to the 31st March, 1931, on accommodation for the two battalions, £5,000 for accommodation for the Royal Army Service Corps unit, £3,000 representing
the initial charges and excess cost of this unit, and £4,000 for the purposes of the Royal Air Force at Ma'an, a total of £42,000. As a set off to the expenditure on the Royal Army Service Corps unit a saving of £16,000 per annum will be effected in the cost of hiring, so that the cost of the employment of this unit is an economic arrangement. The Palestine Government is also to contribute a further sum of £43,000 towards the cost of defence as will be seen from subhead L.
Now I turn to Sub-head E (2) under which provision to the extent of £148,000 is made as a grant in aid to Palestine funds in respect of the costs of the Transjordan Frontier Force. Prior to 1st April, 1930, five-sixths of the cost of this Force was borne by the Palestine Government and one-sixth by His Majesty's Government on behalf of Transjordan. With a view to affording Palestine some relief in the cost of defence services—and it must be borne in mind that the Palestine Government bears the whole cost of her police services, amounting in 1930 to £495,000—a re-allocation of the cost of the Transjordan Frontier Forces has been made, and from 1st April, 1930, Palestine will bear one-quarter of the recurring costs and the whole of the cost of capital works services in Palestine. His Majesty's Government will contribute three-quarters of the recurring costs and the whole of the cost of capital works services in Transjordan. In the original Estimate for 1930 provision was made for the nine months ending 31st December, 1930, on the one-sixth basis and the amount was £27,000, to suit the arrangement of a calendar year.
Reference has been made to the system of accounts which the Palestine Government have adopted. The Committee is aware that estimates in this country are framed on the financial year ending on 31st March, and it has now been decided to revert to the financial year so far as the frontier force charges are concerned. As a result, provision has to be made for the additional three months from 1st January to 31st March in this year. The total cost of this force for the 12 months ending 31st March next is estimated at £250,000, of which £200,000 represents recurrent costs and £50,000 represents costs of capital works. On the revised
basis Palestine will bear one-quarter of the recurrent cost, namely, £50,000 and the cost of works service in Palestine, amounting to £25,000, or a total sum of £75,000. His Majesty's Government will bear three-quarters of the recurrent cost, namely, £150,000, plus the cost of works service in Transjordan estimated at £25,000, or a total sum of £175,000. As £27,000 has already been voted for this service I have therefore to ask the House to vote a further sum of £148,000 under this Sub-head.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I did not gather what is the contribution of the Transjordan Government to this force.

Dr. SHIELS: I think my hon. and gallant Friend is aware that the Transjordan Government is unable to make any payment, but the share allotted to it has been in the past one-sixth, and that has been paid by His Majesty's Government on behalf of Transjordan. Sub-head E.3 deals with the Grant-in-Aid of the Transjordan Administration, and the amount shown in the Supplementary Estimate for this service is £24,000. In the original Estimates a contribution of £60,000 was provided. The revised Estimates indicate that a contribution of £84,000 will be required for the year. This is due to three causes: First a drop in revenue due to difficulty in the collection of taxes in certain areas owing to damage to crops by locusts, estimated at £12,000; secondly, increased expenditure on measures to combat the locust invasion amounting to £4,000; and, thirdly, tribal control measures costing approximately £8,000.
Then I come to Sub-head L, Appropriations-in-Aid. Under this sub-head is shown the sum of £43,000. As I have previously said, this sum is an additional contribution from the Palestine Government towards the cost of defence. In the original Estimate the sum of £32,000 was included as Palestine's defence contribution, so that we are now receiving in cash a total sum of £75,000. In addition, the Palestine Government is charging to its own account the cost of certain local services, such as lighting, heating, water, etc., provided for the two battalions amounting in 1929 to approximately £30,000, and in 1930 to £40,000 up to September; and they will
also charge to their own account the difference between public rates and the preferential rates for the Royal Air Force and military units on the Palestine Railway. I think it will be generally agreed that these various items are in themselves not controversial, and I hope that the Committee will find no difficulty in passing these Votes.

Mr. AMERY: The Committee is obliged to the Under-Secretary for a very fair and lucid statement, and if I rise it is not so much to controvert that statement as to draw attention to one or two points in it. I shall begin in the order in which the Under-Secretary finished. With regard to Transjordan he mentioned that part of the additional expenditure is due to expenditure in connection with frontier control. I would like him to say how far that means that the Government of Transjordan is now effectively administering the whole of the vast territory on the map, up to the borders of the Kingdom of Hedjaz and down to the Red Sea, which is, to a large extent nominally in the past, included in Transjordan. From that I pass to the Supplementary Estimates which are connected with the Palestine and Transjordan defence forces. I quite realise, Mr. Chairman, that I should risk your displeasure if I ventured to make this an opportunity for discussing the general question of Palestine policy, and I shall not attempt to do so. But I presume that I may say this—that, whatever our policy in Palestine may be, all parties in the Committee will agree that we should be in a position to maintain effective order, and that whatever policy is carried out should be a policy inspired by the considered opinion of the Government and not influenced by local disturbances.
From that point of view, whether the late Government reduced the defence provision unwisely or not—as the Member most responsible for that matter I shall not embark on any defence of the reasons which led us to believe that we could deal with it on the scale on which we decided—I think that the Committee will be agreed to-day that we are wise to err, if anything, on the side of caution, and to maintain an adequate force in that country. If so, two questions arise: One is the share of that expense which
should be borne by Palestine, and the other is how far that affects the share of the expense of the Trans-Jordan Frontier Force which has hitherto been borne by us.
In the time of the late Government, when the only defence force for Palestine, outside the Air Squadron, was the Trans-Jordan Frontier Force, and when Palestine was still economically in a reasonably prosperous condition, it was assumed that it was not unreasonable to ask Palestine to pay five-sixths of the cost of a force which was actually stationed outside its boundaries though within the boundary of what is, from the point of view of Geneva, a single mandated area. I fully realised that that payment from Palestine could not be sustained if the economic situation of that country seriously changed for the worse, and I also realise that if at this moment Palestine is called upon to bear any charges for defence it is more natural that she should pay the excess cost of the units actually stationed in Palestine than pay for forces stationed in Trans-Jordan. If I understand rightly the whole essence of what the Under-Secretary has been explaining to us, it is that two things have taken place: Palestine has been relieved to the extent of something like £148,000 of the burden previously imposed upon her, and that what she does pay is now paid only to the extent of one-quarter towards Trans-Jordan, and otherwise is paid towards the Defence Force, i.e., British units stationed in Palestine. I cannot say that in that there is anything with which we need quarrel.
With regard to the Residency in Baghdad, we all know that during the War and immediately afterwards a great deal of money was spent, and that if everything could have been foreseen it would no doubt have been more economical to have built a finer Residency at less cost outside Baghdad. But the Residency being where it is, and the cost of any new Residency being obviously out of the question in these days, I have no doubt that it is right to surround it by rather more space and to separate it from the rather slummy quarter which has hitherto immediately adjoined it. Therefore, I do not know that I would quarrel with that item.
As regards the item for additional Air Force expenditure, there is one point to which I feel bound to draw attention, and that is this: Under the Treaty with Iraq, which has, I believe, been ratified by the Iraq Parliament and will no doubt shortly be ratified by Parliament here, the amount of administrative supervision—I do not say control—which the High Commissioner has been able to exercise in every district of Iraq will, I imagine, be very considerably reduced. At the same time the continued presence of the Air Force in Iraq under the conditions of the Treaty may frequently create a situation in which the Air Force may be called upon to act in support of the Iraq Government's civil and military authorities. It seems to me very essential that we should not be put into the position in which we take action in support of a policy when we have no effective means of knowing how far that policy is justified. We may be called upon, for instance, to bomb Kurdish villages. It may be a perfectly justifiable step to take, from the broad point of view, a true economy of life to do so. But do not let us be put into the position that we shall bomb villages and afterwards find out that the local Iraq officials have really themselves given serious provocation to disturbance or have called upon the Air arm to exercise force when possibly further diplomacy might have avoided the use of force altogether.
I hope we may be assured that, whatever takes place under the Treaty, there will be at any rate such provision as will enable the High Commissioner to have information on the strength of which he can know whether he can justifiably offer the services of the Air Force to the Iraq authorities, or whether he would be justified in giving a warning and saying that under certain conditions he would not sanction that assistance. It is a very important point in a situation where we give and generously desire to give the fullest measure of independence to a Government which is to-day a sovereign Government in alliance with us, but at the same time if under that alliance our forces are available for the service of that Government, we must not be exposed to any possibility of an undesirable use of those services.
From those matters let me turn to what is perhaps the most critical and urgent
aspect of the Votes before us. I refer to the position in the West Indies. The hon. Gentleman skated very lightly over the subject of what he referred to as the sugar depression. After all, his own Government sent out a commissioner to report on the situation, and that commissioner brought out one or two salient dominant facts of the situation. The first was that the depression was not due in any sense to mere inefficiency on the part of the sugar industry in the West Indies, but rather was the result of the deliberate fiscal policy of certain other countries, forcing a surplus of sugar on to a far narrower world market—so called, but really only the residual or dumping market—and that that was a situation which, he pointed out in the second place, brought terrible danger to the whole structure of society in those Colonies and indeed to their relations with the mother country. The hon. Gentleman has brushed all that aside by saying that the Olivier Report and the Government's action upon it had been previously discussed. Action is not quite the right word to use in that connection. It is the Government's inaction that is the serious aspect of the situation.
The Government, at first, at any rate made a pretence of having an alternative scheme to the two schemes, one Socialist and one preferential, which Lord Olivier put forward. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned nothing to-day of the fact that the Government's first alternative scheme was brushed aside as practically an insult, by all the Colonies concerned, and that nothing more has been heard of it. What he tells us now is that certain things are to be done for the alleviation of distress as it occurs. Is not that a terrible confession of failure? Is it not far better to take comprehensive measures to prevent distress occurring than, item by item, through little driblets and successive Supplementary Estimates year after year, to dole out charity, to feed people while, at the same time, probably reducing their economic efficiency and in the end leaving the situation worse than it was at the beginning? It seems to me a pity that the dole should now become an export, as well as a domestic policy, and I cannot help feeling that, with regard to the West Indies, the Government are faced with the problem of what they ought to do, on a broad economic scale, to help
those Colonies and to help the great British trade interests connected with them. This is not the occasion to enter upon a discussion of preferential policy, but it seems to me that, at any rate, there is this to be said—that such a policy could be carried out, if necessary, not with loss, but indeed with gain to the revenue of the country.
The whole policy announced by the Under-Secretary is obviously a policy for the moment, and not a policy which faces the future at all. We have this extraordinary loan or grant to British Guiana. The hon. Gentleman told us that British Guiana has no resources and is hopelessly in debt, but this £50,000 is still called a loan. It is a loan with no date of repayment indicated; its repayment depends on some share of a hypothetical export duty, which may be imposed some day, when sugar yields a rather higher price than it does at present, and, presumably, also, if at that same date, British Guiana is in a very different position from its present position. I doubt if, from the point of view of the Treasury of this country, it is wise to hang these indeterminate second and third charges round the neck of a struggling Colony. I should have thought that, as in the case of the reconstruction of a company which is in difficulties, it would be far better to make a clean cut. Let the Treasury in this instance make a grant and, later on, when British Guiana is in a better situation, let the Treasury be stiffer in the terms of any assistance given. At this moment the proposal seems to me wholly inadequate and the fact that it is given as a loan, and that it is an indefinite obligation on British Guiana, tends to retard and not to encourage the progress of that unfortunate Colony towards recovery. I am not suggesting that we should divide against this item, inadequate and indeed derisory in some respects as it is, compared with the gravity of the situation, but I feel it essential that we on this side of the House should voice our profound dissatisfaction at the ineffective handling of the grave crisis in the West Indies by His Majesty's Government.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: The matter to which I desire to refer falls under the item on the Supplementary Estimate
for a grant-in-aid of the expenses of administration in Dominica and arises out of recent unfortunate events in the Carib reserve in Dominica. These events were first brought to the notice of the House of Commons by an answer of the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs to a question put by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White). The hon. Member asked:
Whether seeing that disturbances had taken place in Dominica in which a certain number of Caribs have either lost their lives or have been injured, he can make any statement as to the causes of these disturbances and the action taken in the matter.
I may state that the Caribs in Dominica are the few remaining representatives of the ancient race found on the island when it was discovered by Columbus. There are only about 100 pure Caribs to-day and between 400 and 500 halfcastes—between Carib and native African. The answer given to that question was as follows:
The disturbance in Dominica to which the hon. Member refers arose from the smuggling into the Carib quarter of contraband rum and tobacco from the French islands.

Mr. McSHANE: Civilisation!

Sir R. HAMILTON: The answer continues:
Resistance was offered to the local police who endeavoured to seize the smuggled goods and to arrest offenders. The police were attacked by the Caribs with sticks, stones and firearms and were ultimately compelled to fire on their attackers in self defence. Three policemen were shot and others injured. Five Caribs were wounded, two of whom died of their wounds. The police were forced to withdraw, but, eventually, with the assistance of a party a marines landed from His Majesty's ship 'Delhi,' succeeded in effecting arrests. Legal proceedings have been instituted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1930; cols. 1688–1689, Vol. 244.]
These legal proceedings have now terminated and the result has been to show that the police, without proper warrant, entered the Carib reserve; that it was their action entirely which led to the fracas; that the Caribs drove them out of the reserve, although the police were firing at them; that two Caribs were killed and four others injured, and that the injuries received by the police were of a minor character. After a landing force of bluejackets and marines from
His Majesty's ship "Delhi" had gone into the reserve, 16 of these unfortunate people were arrested and a number of them were committed for trial. Eventually, owing possibly to the fact that a prominent gentleman in the island engaged counsel on their behalf, their case was properly gone into and they were all acquitted by the judge, who was evidently under the impression that they had acted entirely in self-defence. It seems unfortunate, not only that His Majesty's Navy should be called into a fracas of this sort, but that in order to frighten these poor, unfortunate people who are by nature extremely timid and retiring, His Majesty's ship "Delhi" should have gone to the sea borders of the reserve and fired detonators and Verey lights, and frightened these people, so that they all took to the woods.
As the judicial inquiry has come to an end, I now ask that there should be a full inquiry into the whole matter. I understand that some move has been made in that direction and that some promise has been given of a local inquiry, but I ask that this should not be merely an inquiry by the local administration. This matter concerns the action of the police and the action of the administrator in calling on the services of His Majesty's Navy in a matter of this kind. These are exceedingly serious questions, and if an inquiry is granted, it should be an independent authoritative inquiry appointed from outside and not inside the island. I ask the Under-Secretary if such an inquiry can be granted, that certain matters should be gone into, one of these being the status of the Carib reserve and the Carib tribe with a view to the statutory protection of their customary rights and privileges. It has always been understood that the Caribs have enjoyed certain privileges, or exemptions from direct taxation, and that the Carib chief has held a certain independent position, but it has all been very vague in the past, and it would be extremely satisfactory if this could be put on a definite footing for the future.
At the same time I would ask that inquiry should be made into the economic condition of the tribe, as the reserve in which they live is poor, barren land, and I am afraid their economic condition is by no means satisfactory. I think the action of the police in entering the reserve with blank warrants filled in by
themselves—it is rather doubtful what they were going to search for—calls for serious inquiry as well as the action of the administrator in calling in His Majesty's Navy to deal with such a petty matter, because these are people to whom he ought to have given the most care and the most sympathetic attention, seeing that they are a poor, timid race living under very unhappy conditions. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to give me some assurance on the lines I have indicated.

5.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am sure that the Under-Secretary will be grateful to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) for bringing this matter to his attention. We have a far-flung Empire, and incidents of this kind are liable to happen occasionally, but I think that Parliament is always jealous of the rights of people of this kind when such a matter is brought to its notice, and I am certain that the Under-Secretary will be able to satisfy the hon. Member, if not to-day, at any rate later on, on the points he has mentioned. I myself, I may say, knew nothing of the incidents referred to by the hon. Member until he raised the question just now. I join with the right hon. Gentleman opposite in congratulating the Under-Secretary on the very lucid and very helpful manner in which he presented these complicated Estimates. I am sure he will be able to answer the few simple and friendly questions which I intend to address to him. With regard to the Iraq Vote and the question of defence, I think this Committee should be most grateful that we have not to find more money. The reason, of course, is the extraordinary success that has attended the establishment of air control in those vast and regions. The lowest estimate, I understand, which was put down for the Middle East when the military had control was something like £40,000,000 a year; now it costs very little indeed, simply because those regions are very suitable for the use of aeroplanes. The extreme mobility of the air-arm enables huge territories to be controlled and, furthermore, the air-arm has not the same effect of irritating the local people as permanent military occupation has. The mere drone of the aeroplane is enough
to restore order, and it has proved a most humane weapon. I was in this region last year, and I visited one of the outlying air stations which was engaged in dealing with a rebellion. Bedouin tribes were brought to surrender without a single casualty simply by the combined action of aeroplanes and armoured cars. The reason I draw attention to this small item is to urge that air control shall be extended to other parts of the Dominions and Colonies.
With regard to the item of £22,000 for removing the Arab village, I must ask my hon. Friend whether these poorer Arabs are being offered other land. Are they willing to remove, or is there some Local Emergency Powers Act being brought to bear? Have they been asked whether they are willing to sell their land, or has it been sold over their heads? I am all in favour of adding to the amenities of the Residency, but I am very jealous indeed for the rights of those poor Arab villagers, the representatives of an ancient civilisation which has a great future before it—a future great Arab federation which will stretch right across the Middle East and be a bulwark of the British Empire so long as these people are properly treated.
I was not aware that the Transjordan Government is providing no part of the cost of the defence force. I am not asking this question of the Under-Secretary to embarrass him. The Committee is being asked every year to find very considerable sums for the upkeep of this force in Transjordan. The echoes of the speech which was delivered on Wednesday of last week by the Chancellor of the Exchequer must not be allowed to die away. In this House we must look twice at every item of expenditure, and this expenditure gives no employment in this country. What is being done to enable the Transjordan Government to balance its budget? This part of the country, where I was twice last year, used to be one of the wealthiest parts of the Roman Empire. It was then a great granary. To-day, it is capable of great development. It is sparsely populated by wandering Bedouin tribes and comparatively few settled Arabs. I understand it has been said that locusts have been responsible for the failure to gather the
taxes, and before it was said that it was the turbulence of the inhabitants.
This part of the country only wants diligent cultivators with knowledge and modern methods to make it very wealthy and prosperous, but I am told that no one is allowed to cross the Jordan without special permit and no outside colonists are allowed to go there. There is no question here of evicting ancient settlements of thickly populated agricultural tribes and cultivators of the soil; there are vast empty lands crying out for people to go into them. The immigrants who go there ought to be allowed to have arms for their defence. If citizens of Leeds or Whitechapel or Dundee or Hull went out to Kenya, they would be permitted to have rifles and other arms for self-defence, and the colonists who ought to he encouraged to go to Transjordan and make it self-supporting, would naturally expect to be armed and that the younger men among them would be invited to join the police force. This police force was not able to be used in the disturbances, for political and religious and racial reasons. It could be used only for collecting taxes from the present inhabitants or preventing incursions from semi-settled tribes. But those risks of incursions from the desert are diminishing. This force, for which Palestine pays one-sixth, cannot be used for maintaining and restoring order in Palestine, and therefore I suggest dilution. You should be able to get the younger sons of families to cross over the Jordan. Every year this House is asked to vote those large sums for the defence of this territory. It is a potentially rich territory, with great resources, and it should be settled and developed. Otherwise, this liability will go on for ever. We pay for the native levies, we pay the cost of the British force there and for the British-commanded force, which is a very efficient force from what I saw of it.

Mr. ROSS: They are ex-"Black and Tans."

Lieut. - Commander KENWO RTHY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is always ready to speak up for his own country. The officers of His Majesty's Regular Army are commanding the Transjordan Defence Force. The so-called
ex-"Black and Tans" are or were in the Palestine Police Force. I am not talking about the Palestine Police Force, but about the Transjordan Defence Force. I do not want to touch on questions of policy. I am dealing only with practical proposals. I understand there is to come before the House a suggestion for a large loan for the improvement and cultivation of Palestine. I should like to ask whether any part of this loan is to be expended on the improvement and cultivation of the other side of the Jordan, as it is all one mandated territory. Is a part of that loan to be used for the development of Transjordan? If that is the case, is Transjordan going to be open to immigrants? There is Palestine overcrowded, there is scrambling for land and complaints of eviction and so on, while Transjordan, potentially rich and fertile, is wanting people.

Mr. McSHANE: Who is to go there?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I do not want to go into a discussion on policy. There are potential emigrants who would be anxious to go if they were allowed to go in sufficient numbers and were given a sense of security and had their own quota of young men in the police force. There are plenty of people who would be willing to go, and any amount of money is available to support the colonising of that country. Do not let us be put off this constructive policy in a part of the world for which we are responsible by fears or prejudices. Here is a case for a bold and constructive policy, and I commend it to my hon. Friend.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: In the course of the very informative and full description, giving much information on his travels, which we have had from the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), I could not help feeling that there was but one more river for him to cross, and that was the River Jordan, before he reached the Promised Land. I took down one or two of the things for which he pleaded. The people are to be given modern knowledge, capital, land, houses, money and motor cars. What a delightful life, if I go to Transjordan! If only someone would give them to us here, what a happy land ours would be! Why give them to Transjordan?
With regard to the item of £1,000 additional cost of the British Force stationed in Iraq, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) dealt with the possibility of the Royal Air Force under the future Treaty arrangement being placed at the disposal of the Iraqi authorities by the High Commissioner. Possibly such placing at the disposal of the Iraqi Government would, under the circumstances outlined by the right hon. Gentleman, be unjustified and possibly in every case premature. Where will the line of demarcation come between the Royal Air Force of the British Empire, and the Air Force projected by the Iraqi Government? An officer of the Royal Air Office seconded to the Iraqi Government is in this country for the purpose of purchasing aircraft for the Iraq Air Force. There will presumably have to be a very close liaison between the two Air Forces in order materially to affect the expenditure, for which this House is asked, on the British Air Force in Iraq. I trust that we can have some light on the new development, particularly in its bearing on our expenditure.
I should also like some light thrown on the question of the Residency. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull with regard to the poor Arabs. Is there any form of restriction on their being turned out of their existing habitations? Are they being offered alternative accommodation, and will it be at a higher rental than their old and as satisfactory as their present accommodation? Why should the poor Iraqis have to move 400 yards away? It is some years since I was in the Residency in Bagdad, but then there was clear ground all round it, and I should have thought that between that time and now we could have attempted to consolidate our claims for sufficient cubic space to enable the High Commissioner to breathe in safety and comfort. As our time in Iraq is getting shorter, the expenditure on amenities and comforts is getting greater. Why should not the Iraqi village be rebuilt? Why not spend the money on working the people up to that state of civilisation and sanitation which the hon. and gallant Gentleman and hon. Members on all sides are so anxious should be
attained in the outlying parts of the Empire?
It is a contradictory policy to move these gentlemen away and let them live on in unsanitary conditions. Why not let them be educated and have their village rebuilt in such a state that the High Commissioner can live adjacent to them without detriment to himself? One can appreciate the advantage of emancipated areas, but for a Minister representing a Socialist Government to agree to have the indigenous inhabitants moved away, is not likely to make for peace and goodwill. I hope that we shall have a little explanation of the very curious reversal of policy which the Socialist Government have allowed the High Commissioner to bring about in removing the indigenous inhabitants away from him rather than getting into closer and better touch and understanding with them.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: Will the Under-Secretary tell us a little more with regard to the grant for expenditure in relief of unemployment in Antigua and St. Kitts-Nevis? Will he also explain the item on the top of page 5 of the Supplementary Estimate, "Grant-in-Aid of expenses of administration, etc., £5,000"? Does the Budget for the year of the expenditure in Antigua show any reduction that will not cause hardship? Have any economies been made in such items as the allowance to the Governor in connection with official entertainments, and so on? I am not anxious to oppose the grant for the relief of the distress that exists in these two islands, but I should like to be assured that every reasonable economy is being practised before they are given more money from the British Treasury. Will the Under-Secretary say, in connection with the employment on the relief work, whether the hired labourer and the small planter are treated on terms of equality? Has the small planter, who has been ruined by the sugar depression, and who is in exactly the same position as the hired labourer, equality in connection with the relief schemes?

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: I should like to ask why the expenditure on Palestine and Transjordan is not divided. The expenditure on Palestine should form a separate item. Is the Secretary of State for War satisfied that the extra troops, which are now stationed
in Palestine, have proper barrack accommodation? I was there a year ago, and the situation was not satisfactory. Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the extra troops required for police duties are satisfactorily housed?

Dr. SHIELS: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman kindly repeat the first part of his question?

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: In the Estimates for Palestine and Transjordan the items are put very close together, and I think they might be separated more clearly. On page 6, reference is made to
the capital cost of works services in Palestine for both Forces.
I was under the impression that the money which has been spent in Palestine is partly paid by the Palestine Government, but I do not gather that the money which is spent in Transjordan is in any way a charge on the Palestine Government. I do not think that that is quite clear.

Mr. HOPKIN: I support the strong plea made by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) with regard to Transjordan. Anyone who has been to that country knows, even by looking at the soil, that it has great possibilities. It is to be hoped that something will be done to encourage people to go there, so that the Government of the country will be able to have money and at least a balanced budget. The sum of £200,000 which is down for the defence of the country is very large indeed, but I presume that it is large because the force consists of cavalry. Has any account been taken of the question of replacing the cavalry by mechanised transport, by whippets and that sort of thing? I fought in that part of the country, and it is the kind of country where mechanised devices of that kind can be used to advantage and with a considerable saving on the accounts. With regard to the position of the defence force in Palestine, it is clear that the battalions of British soldiers could very well look after the towns. The only people who need defence are those who live in Jewish colonies.
When the late Lord Plumer was in Palestine, he allowed each of the Jewish colonies to have arms which were kept under lock and key under the control of
a responsible man in the country. How far has this system been allowed to go on or extended? This defence force would be very valuable for the people in the colonies. Many of the colonists are ex-soldiers, and in all the events of last year not one Arab village was attacked by the Jews. The whole of the defence lies with the colonists themselves, and I would ask that, if possible, this means of defence should be extended. I am certain no one in the Committee would suggest that the Jewish colonists would do anything at all to abuse the privilege which I hope my hon. Friend will be able to give to them.

Mr. HURD: All who have had any association with the West Indies will appreciate the very depressing condition in which they now are, and no one will desire to withhold from them an expression of sympathy in the difficulties through which they are passing, and which have arisen from causes almost entirely beyond their control. We know something of the heroic way in which a comparatively small body of men in the British West Indies are maintaining an industrial position of extreme difficulty, upon the maintenance of which depends the livelihood and welfare of a vast population. In spite of all temptations, and we know there have been many temptations offered to them, they wish to remain within the British Empire. When speaking of the loans to British Guiana the Under-Secretary said the prospect of repayment is remote. I hope he will tell us what are the Treasury terms attached to those loans, and also what ameliorative measures His Majesty's Government have in contemplation instead of loans and mere relief works.
The main market for the sugar crop of British Guiana is in Canada, and I should like to know whether the British Government is taking any steps in conjunction with the Canadian Government to devise a better market, and better marketing, for the sugar crop. The Under-Secretary knows what a keen and practical interest Canada is now taking in that as well as in the other British West Indian islands, and it would be a really substantial measure of progress in Imperial policy if we could find a basis of co-operative action between ourselves and Canada in helping the British West Indies on to their feet again. One of the
items in the Estimate relates to loans in aid of expenses of administration in British Guiana. In recent times interesting investigations have been carried on at the expense of the local administration to see whether the class of rice produced, the methods of producing it, and the marketing of it, cannot be improved. I do not know whether any part of this item now before us relates to that branch of expenditure, but if it does I hope the Under-Secretary will tell us something of the prospects of improving rice cultivation in that colony.
I do not know, also, whether the administrative expenses in regard to roads come under this item. At home we are talking of lavish road development, and I wonder whether the Under-Secretary can add anything to what he was good enough to tell me yesterday in regard to British-Canadian proposals which have been before his Department for road developments in the hinterland of British Guiana, where there are large, almost illimitable, richnesses of timber. If it is possible to encourage British-Canadian industrial co-operation to develop the hinterland we shall do a great deal to relieve future Votes of these grants-in-aid of administration and relief.
As the late Secretary of State for the Colonies indicated, the time is ripe for a far bolder attack on the whole question of Empire development than we are pursuing. Unfortunately, this question has been intermingled with party politics in a curious way, and we are losing the larger vision. There are illimitable opportunities for development and administration on these lines; and I wish we in this House could realise that these West Indian Islands, like other parts of the Empire, are not hungering for doles. They are tired of doles, they do not want charity, but they do ask for statesmanship, and I hope the day is soon coming when we shall get it.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: I notice in the Estimates that grants amounting to £112,000 have been made to British Guiana for the relief of unemployment arising from the crisis in the sugar industry, and I would ask the Under-Secretary to tell us something about the conditions to which those grants are subject. We in this House can have nothing but a feeling of sympathy for the tragedy that has befallen these islands. They
are the victims of a world policy of dumping which is one of the most difficult of all our modern economic problems when it comes to devising adequate remedies. The inhabitants of the West Indian Islands are much more handicapped than we are, in the sense that they have entrusted their fortunes very largely to a single industry, and I would like to know whether the Under-Secretary is satisfied that in what we are doing for those unfortunate fellow subjects we are making the most of our Labour party policy of work first and maintenance afterwards. Is he satisfied that the economic policy of the island has been devised in such a way as to throw up alternative methods of permanent employment as distinct from relief works, and that this grant of £112,000 is likely to help in that direction? Members on all sides of the House will agree that we have a common duty as citizens to stand by the people in the West Indian Islands, and it is of the greatest importance that we should take a long view and ask ourselves whether the money will help in getting a better economic policy for these people, who are about as unfortunately situated as people in any part of the British Empire.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: This Estimate discloses a really desperate state of affairs so far as the West Indies and British South America are concerned. It has been a commonplace for many years that the financial condition of the West Indian Islands and British Guiana has been anything but what one could wish. In past days it did not matter so much, because they had only to come here for a loan or financial assistance of some kind; but to-day, faced as we are at home with a possible Budget deficit estimated at anything from £20,000,000 to £50,000,000, the time is shortly coming when we shall not be able to give them that assistance for which they have looked, and not looked in vain, for such a long time. A large part of this money is to be used in aid of administration and expenditure. We see the headings:
"DOMINICA—
Grant-in-Aid of expenses of administration.
ST. LUCIA—
Additional Grant-in-Aid of expenses of administration.
ANTIGUA—
Grant-in-Aid of expenses of administration.
BRITISH GUIANA—
Loan, on terms to be prescribed by the Treasury, in aid of expenses of administration.
Is it not possible to convey to these Colonies that the time has come when they must cut their coat according to their cloth? They will probably say that their unsatisfactory financial position is due to the slump in the sugar trade—that is true—and that when the sugar trade improves their prosperity will grow with it; but what chance is there of the sugar trade improving? There was a time, a great many years ago, when the West Indies were the great sugar-producing centre of the world, but that centre has shifted far during the last two generations, and the sugar beet industry of Europe and of this country has not only competed with but has to all intents and purposes killed the sugar industry of the West Indies. Remarkable progress has been made in the cultivation of sugar beet in Europe during late years. The root has been developed to such an extent that the sugar content is in many cases anything from 20 to 25 per cent., and I think I am right in saying that there is only one type of sugar cane which equals, or exceeds, the sugar content of good European sugar beet. I would like to know whether that particular type of sugar cane is being experimented with, not only in the West Indian islands but also in British Guiana.
Sooner or later something will have to be done to develop the great potentialities of British Guiana. The country is almost illimitable in its possibilities. First of all there is the low, flat coastal land, alluvial soil, which was formerly below the sea. At some pre-historic period it was raised above the sea level—but only just above; so that in many cases it requires both protection from erosion and drainage. That is the great sugar producing belt of British Guiana. The position of the sugar trade being what it is, what is being done to develop and to encourage alternative crops in that rich area As far as I am aware, all that has been attempted is to develop the cultivation of rice, and up to the present the rice grown there cannot com-
pete in quality or in price with the rice grown in Burma—at least, I believe I am right in saying so; and as far as this country is concerned British Guiana rice is almost unknown. What are the possibilities of growing fruit there for the American market? Is it impossible to grow it or do the American tariffs make the trade an impossibility?
At present the principal fruit trade of British Guiana is done with Canada. Surely it is possible to develop that trade with Canada. It seems a disastrous pity that all this money, small though the amounts be, should be used to meet the expenses of administration. Surely it would be better to grant a larger sum and use it for development. The possibilities of British Guiana, and the Hinterland have been practically untouched, owing to the lack of transport facilities. The river traffic has not been developed, and for the last few years the rivers have been used by a very small number of obsolete steamers. I want to know if anything is going to be done to improve that service, and what is being done to develop the Hinterland with its magnificent wealth of timber. Beyond that we have the open plains extending beyond the Brazilian border which are practically untouched. What is being done to provide facilities to tap that source?
We have heard some talk of a road being made through the forest belt towards the Venezuelan frontier, and I would like to know to what extent those roads have been constructed. Have the authorities there considered whether it is possible to build a railway? I agree that a road is easier and cheaper to construct on account of the steep gradients which can be more easily overcome by road transport. It is quite a commonplace to say that gradients to reach the Hinterland must be of a very steep character. The objection I have to this item, as far as this part of the world is concerned, is that this money is not being used for that purpose. Some of this expenditure ought to be curtailed, and larger sums granted to develop the potential wealth of these islands.
With regard to the sugar trade of the West Indies, I should like to know whether the special type of sugar cane which is being grown in Cuba and the
Philippines is being experimented with in the British Colonies. It seems to me that that is the only chance we have of rehabilitating the sugar trade in the West Indies. The Americans are very largely supplied with sugar from Cuba and the Philippines. The European market is more self-supporting, but the Canadian market is still open. If we can develop the same type of sugar cane, and if by scientific experiments we can improve the sugar content to anything like the extent to which the content of sugar beet has improved, there is a prospect that the trade of British Guiana may be improved.

Mr. ROSS: I want to deal for a few moments with the question which was raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton)—whom I regret not to see in his place—relating to the Caribs. It has been stated that an unjustifiable attack was made upon them by the captain of a British ship, H.M.S. "Delhi," the name of which I do not remember. It is said that the Caribs are a very shy and primitive people. That may be so, but I think there is a limit to their shyness, and they beat up the police, and, if I may use such a phrase for such a people, they beat them if good. What is the complaint made against the captain of the British ship? It must be remembered that the captain was urged to go to the assistance of the local authorities. We have been told that the police got the worst of it in the disturbance. The captain of the ship let off some fireworks, but he did not injure these primitive people either in their property or their persons. Although the use of fireworks may have an alarming effect in this case, the display did not do any permanent harm to the nerves of these people. I think the course adopted by the captain was a proper one, because it is much better to do this kind of thing by a demonstration than taking steps which would excite the people and do damage to their property as well. I should be the last person to suggest that these primitive people should be harshly treated, but we must remember that they have considerable privileges which we may envy them and are not subject to any direct taxation.
I pass from this question to the Middle Eastern services to other items in this Vote. The right hon. Gentleman the
Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) has raised the question of the control of the Air Force in Iraq, and I wish to go into the question in greater detail. The Iraq Government maintain their own force, while there is a certain part of the Air Force which we have to maintain. I would like to ask the hon. Member who is now responsible for safeguarding and protecting the aerodromes of the Air Force in Palestine a question as to the control of that force. There are two main areas in which trouble may occur. There is the Mosul area. There in Kurdistan it must always be possible that a force may be used for a purpose which, if we had complete control, we should not permit. I understand that the Government of Iraq might call upon the Air Force in a manner which might lead to incidents which we might regret. When we remember the large desert front which has to be protected, the situation is very different owing to the possibility of raids by desert tribes which might require instant action by the Air Force if the local tribes are to be properly protected. We are aware of the pretensions of the Air Force in dealing with naval affairs. But this success over the camel, the ship of the desert, is all that they can claim up to the present. We all agree that there is no force better suited for that purpose than the Air Force, and arrangements should be made whereby it will be possible for them to act as soon as an alarm is raised.
I would like to raise a point in connection with the Transjordan Frontier Force. On the question of defence, the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies has told us that, two battalions are now being quartered permanently in Palestine. Anyone who has taken an interest in this matter, must welcome the announcement that a considerable force of Crown troops have been quartered in Palestine, and that this task of keeping law and order has not been handed over to any other force. I would like to ask which troops have been despatched. Are they two battalions from the Regular Army and where have they been taken from? Will the sending of these two battalions necessitate the embodiment of two more battalions which have been disbanded? As far as I understand the position, the regular battalions are now fully occu-
pied. It is notorious that the Government have made a reduction in the number of our battalions since the War, and I am wondering how it will be possible to raise two battalions for this purpose. Where will they come from, and will it involve any additional Army Estimates or the raising of any fresh troops?

6.0 p.m.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I was very much surprised by the tone of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) in dealing with the point which he raised with regard to the disturbances in Dominica. I really do not think that, in bringing forward this point, which to my mind is an important one to bring before the House of Commons, the hon. Gentleman appreciated what the situation must have been. Dominica is an extremely mountainous island, very sparsely inhabited, where it is extremely difficult to get any real economic advance, because the climatic and geological conditions are unique even in the West Indies and are almost baffling to mankind. Probably Dominica will always be the most beautiful to look at, but the least productive, of all the Lesser Antilles. It is, perhaps, for this reason that, in the remote parts of that island, there remain the last remnants of the aborigines of the West Indies. The vast bulk of the population are negroes, and there are just these comparatively few families of Caribs.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland made very heavy weather in regard to the timidity and the retiring nature of these people, but certainly that is not my experience. When I went into the interior of Dominica, they seemed to be anything but timid or retiring. Physically, they were an extremely lusty-looking people, and, so far from being the sort of people who would be in the least frightened by anything, I think the circumstantial evidence that we heard from the hon. Member regarding their handling of the negro police bears out what I am saying. I am confident that, so far from there being grounds for regretting that, when a conflict takes place between the negro police in Dominica and the Caribs, His Majesty's Navy should land men to intervene, I think that that is probably by far the best
thing that could be done. I remember, during my time at the Colonial Office, more than one incident, in the South Sea Islands, I think, in particular, which showed what delicate situations may arise when the native police, in the ordinary execution of their police duties, come up against some other tribe or race in these out-of-the-way places. In such cases there is nearly always trouble, but I say quite frankly that there is very much less trouble if a white man, a representative of the British Government and the British authorities, can go and settle matters, rather than that more police of the same kind should be sent. I think that the Administrator was absolutely right in asking the naval cruiser, or whatever it was, to send a party to clear up this trouble which had occurred, and, so far from regretting the methods adopted by the naval officer in approaching the Caribs, I believe, from the account given by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, that they were absolutely right, and that that was just the way in which things of this sort ought to be dealt with.
If a lot of people are making a disturbance, and you start to attack them, there will immediately be casualties, and even if you start firing shots over people's heads, undoubtedly anything may happen; but if, when you arrive, you make a certain amount of noise, run up flags, and so on, they know that there is something special happening, the head man usually comes out, and the British officer can immediately hear the complaints against the police and see that justice is done. It is quite obvious that, where a disturbance of that kind has taken plane, what was referred to by the hon. Member as the arrest of the leading people in the Carib reserve must, I should have thought, take place. The matter must be cleared up, and it is not a very serious matter in the tropics to put them on to a cruiser, run them round, and clear the matter up on the spot. We think of these matters in terms of all the forms of a highly complex civilisation such as we have here, and, when things like this happen, in the tropics, we imagine a good deal, and read into the accounts much more than there really is in them from the point of view of the people who actually live under those conditions.
I want next to refer to the fact that the main headings of the West Indian items in this Estimate are all grants in aid of administration. What does that mean? It means that there has been a collapse of the revenues of the sugar-growing islands, owing, of course, to the refusal of the Government to put into operation any of the recommendations of Lord Olivier's Commission. I will not, however, labour that point. I have laboured it often before, and shall do so again at the appropriate time; but I realise that in this matter the Chancellor of the Exchequer, more particularly, is quite obdurate, and, as he has raised objections to doing anything that Lord Olivier suggests, it seems to me that the only other course that can be adopted is to do what, is possible to reduce, and I should say permanently to reduce, the cost of administration in these small islands.
I want to ask the hon. Gentleman what attitude is being adopted in this connection by the Colonial Office in the face of these demands for grants in aid of administration in the case of this chain of islands in the Lesser Antilles—whether they contemplate doing what I believe ought to be done, and what has now become a really urgent matter of practical policy, namely, doing away with at least two governorships—those of the Leeward Islands and of the Windward Islands—and only having one Governor in Trinidad, with just a skeleton administration in the other Antilles? At present each of them has its own legislative council, and administers the whole panoply of government, with a complex federation, particularly in the case of the Leeward Islands; and the overhead charges of government are greater than the economic resources of these islands are, or in my view are ever likely to be, unless great changes in world sugar prices occur, able to afford again. Therefore, I think that this question, which is sometimes called "West Indian Federation," must be taken up as an immediate practical issue, and something must be done before further demands are made upon this House for grants in aid of administration such as these.
I quite realise the great difficulties that are in the way. It means, probably, superseding or, at any rate, reducing the powers of, a certain number of these elective or semi-elective bodies. There are
all the little historical differences in status and form between the islands, the tradition that Antigua has been the centre of governorship, and all the rest of it, and, inevitably, the conservative and traditional forces of that kind have to be considered. I do think, however, that the time has come when the policy—Barbados will have to be left out—of having just one Governor at Trinidad, paying, quite frankly, very occasional visits up and down the islands, and having merely administrators in charge of them, with no elaborate legislative federation, but treating them all as, so to speak, dependencies of Trinidad, is probably the policy that will have to be pursued. I shall be glad if the hon. Gentleman can give me any information as to whether any move is being made by his Noble Friend in that direction, because I feel that the time has come when that question has to be brought out and faced anew.
I see that by far the largest single item of the West Indian section of this Estimate, amounting to more than a quarter of the total, is for unemployment relief grants in British Guiana. British Guiana, on the mainland of South America, is a large country, which, again, is rather like Dominica. It is, perhaps, not quite so bad as Dominica, but it is a country which has hitherto baffled the efforts, first of the Dutch, and then of ourselves, really to harness its potential resources. The population is very small, and is mainly confined to that narrow coastal strip which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) described as having been pushed up ages ago, while a great part of it has been within historical times reclaimed from the Atlantic. A considerable proportion of the population of British Guiana has lived, and is living, below sea level, or, at any rate, below high water mark, and the sugar and rice plantations and fields are largely in a very narrow strip of land close to the sea. I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether this £112,000 of unemployment relief grants is being expended literally as doles to the unemployed, to the Indian and negro labourers who have been thrown out of work by the collapse of the sugar industry; or whether it is being used for financing public works, and, if so, of what
kind. British Guiana has already spent literally millions upon sea defences, and upon drainage, dykes and the rest of it, and it is a perpetual problem to keep this work going at all.
There is a matter which was raised by my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) in this connection, and on which he has asked me to put on his behalf a few questions to the Under-Secretary. My Noble Friend is anxious to know whether any of this money is being spent in special anti-malaria work. Admittedly a Colony in a warm climate, which needs opening up by means of land settlement with labourers, must have a good name, and undoubtedly, for some reason or other, particularly in India, British Guiana has the reputation of being particularly malarious and unhealthy. I am not sure that it is really any more malarious than any other part of the tropics with a high rainfall. Wherever in the tropics there is a high rainfall—and the climate in British Guiana is often very wet—you have a certain amount of malaria. The question that my Noble Friend wants me to ask is whether any of this money is being earmarked especially for anti-malaria work. It is true that in the old days, when the Dutch fashion of building and town planning still prevailed, there were stagnant canals in practically every urban settlement, but those days have gone by, such canals as are left are oiled, and the malaria problem is really the problem of that extensive anti-malaria work which has to go on in tropical countries, like West Africa for example, where it is not so much a matter of specific work as of constant propaganda to all householders urging them to keep down the number of mosquitos, to use mosquito nets, and to take quinine regularly.
I want to know, in connection with British Guiana expenditure, whether any of this money is being expended upon endeavouring to settle the wage-earning population that has been turned off the closed-down sugar estates on holdings in the North-Western part of the country. One has heard from year to year in connection with British Guiana that, away from the old settlements around Demerara and Berbice, there is what is called the Corentyne coast, an admirable land, not under high forest, which would be easily harnessed and brought under
cultivation if only some population could be got to go and live there. I am not at all sure, looking to the future of British Guiana, whether peasant settlement of that kind had not better be started with people who have been born and bred in the country, rather than by elaborately worked out settlement schemes for inducing new colonists to come from other parts of the West Indies, and even from India, to take up this vacant land on the Corentyne coast. I wonder if any of this grant is being spent in that direction, because we want an effective experiment to see whether it will succeed.
My hon. Friend talked about alternative crops. It ice has been produced very largely as an alternative crop to sugar and I understand, although the rice industry is comparatively young, that it is steadily gaining ground and improving in quality and yield. The British Guiana Commission proposed the introduction of the ground nut. I believe it has been tried but I have heard various accounts. Certainly the soil, such as one sees, is not very rich. As a matter of fact, a great deal of it looks just the sort of rather sandy soil in which one sees the ground nut growing in West Africa. I understand there have been great difficulties in introducing the ground nut in British Guiana and, if the hon. Gentleman could give me any information on the point, I should be extremely grateful. The difficulty I can imagine is whether you get a dry time at the right time for harvesting the nuts. That, of course, is absolutely essential, and the rainfall there is capricious. Could the hon. Gentleman tell me whether the bulk of the unemployed are East Indians or negroes? Because, again looking to the future, it is all important that public opinion in India should know what is being done for the East Indians who are permanently settled there. If any more are to be induced to go from Madras—and the Madras population is singularly suitable to the conditions there—it is all important that they should know exactly what is being done for their fellow—countrymen who are now settled there.
The whole of this Vote arises from sugar, with the exception of the hurricane in Dominica. The outlook for sugar is still pretty black from the
British producers' point of view. We must remember the basic fact that every acre of beet sugar, not only in this country but in the world, is grown at an uneconomic price and would never be grown at all if it was not for subsidies and tariffs. You cannot, even with the remarkable improvements that have been made as the result of scientific development, grow beet sugar and produce it per ton as cheaply as you can cane sugar in the tropics. Of course, you can produce cane sugar per ton in Java cheaper than in any country in the world owing to its peculiar advantages of soil and climate, and probably Cuba comes next. The peculiar problem of the West Indies is not that they cannot produce sugar much cheaper than we can produce good beet sugar in this country. Their costs of production are certainly slightly higher than in Java and Cuba. The reason is that you have not in the British West Indies the same vast area under sugar than you have in Cuba and Java. Cuba has produced 5,000,000 in a year and Java 3,000,000 tons. I suppose the maximum production of the highest producer of the British West Indies, British Guiana, has been 250,000 tons. The scale of operations in Cuba and Java has enabled them to have science and a staff of scientists and to afford a scale of operations, a scale of factories and a scale of labour organisation which is extremely difficult in these comparatively small British Colonies, with small capital resources, small revenues and a small population. In Java you have 42,000,000 people. On the research station in Java alone the sugar industry spends £100,000 a year, more than the total revenues of more than one of these British sugar Colonies.
The problem of scientific advance in the British sugar Colonies is one of the most baffling that has ever been before the Colonial Office. My hon. Friend alluded to the breeding of sugar canes. No sooner is one cane brought into cultivation in Java and Cuba than it is already regarded as obsolete, and they breed better and better. They breed for higher yields. The cane introduced in Java in the year I was there—a real example of rationalisation—put on between 15 and 20 per cent. to the yield in one year over the previous variety, and the scientists said it would be com-
pletely obsolete in five years. Therefore, it is not a question of introducing these canes from Cuba or from Java. As a matter of fact, nearly all the cane breeding work has to be done to fit particular local conditions. The Java cane, for instance, has in its family tree a particular reed, which is not sugar cane at all, which is desired to make it resistant to a particular local insect which is only found there, and there are all kinds of refinements of that kind. Each of these Colonies has to breed its own cane. The cane that will succeed in Barbados will not do in British Guiana and vice versa. The whole problem of sugar cane breeding is one of the great scientific problems and, admittedly, the British Empire has been behindhand in the matter. This is not the first grant there has been from the Imperial Parliament for haling out West Indian sugar. The cause of these periodic crashes in the West Indian revenues, periodic doles to the West Indian workers, periodic loss of capital and exodus of the European population which has been going on for many years, is that, owing to the fiscal system of this country, they have been at a grave disadvantage compared with their competitors, who are all linked up into subsidy and tariff arrangements which they do not share. The French Colonies are treated as part of France, having a scale of preference incredibly above anything we have ever given to our Colonies. Cuba is specially favoured by the United States and our sugar is shut out. The Danish West Indies are developing a great protected sugar industry, the envy of our people, because they have advantages which our Colonies do not get from us.
I want to make one remark in regard to the latter item in the Estimate. I was very much interested to hear the reasons given by the Under-Secretary for the purchase of Naboth's Vineyard in Baghdad. Apparently, it is on high medical advice and sanitary recommendation that the Arab squatter is to be removed to a distance of at least 400 yards from the British Residency. That is probably a good thing for both parties and I am sure that the Arab will be given a square deal for a transaction which is going to cost us £22,000. But I am not afraid that the Colonial Office
will do an injustice to these gentlemen. I am interested that the hon. Gentleman should have given the reason that he has, and I hope it will be quoted in future when we come to this vexed problem of what is called segregation in townships. One of the great grievances of the Indian community in Kenya, for example, is that their bazaar is removed so far from the centre of the European quarter, and they emphatically object to any segregation at all. I am rather glad the hon. Gentleman has given this reason, that in these countries it is desirable that the races should not be huddled up together. It cuts both ways.
We in Europe have become acclimatised to certain types of complaint. From pulmonary complaints we get bronchitis, and we are used to it. If a native or a non-European inhabitant catches this complaint, he has it very much worse than we do. He has none of our inherited and acquired immunity. Similarly, in West Africa, there are considerable numbers of natives who are carriers of yellow fever, but are hardly affected by it. They have a certain degree of immunity from its effects. But, if a mosquito bites an immune native who is a carrier of yellow fever and then bites a European, that European is probably dead. It is desirable in places of this kind that these matters should not be dealt with on the basis of political idealism and the cry of racial equality and freedom and the like but should be settled upon sound scientific principles, which certainly dictate that in townships in tropical and Oriental countries it is in the interests of all races that they should not live huddled together, but that there should be segregation in their town planning. Although it is extremely unpopular to say it, I am glad there is an item in this Supplementary Estimate which bears that out, and it is justified on that ground alone.

Dr. MORGAN: I want to say only a few words on one question. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), I think for the first time in these Debates, showed some democratic feeling. He has made speech after speech in the House, especially on the Colonies and the West Indian Colonies, and I have looked in vain until to-day for any speck of anything ap-
proaching a democratic instinct. I agree with him in several of the views which he has expressed to-day, but I must say he got rather hazy when he started to discuss the questions of malaria, of germs and immunities. As a medical man, I can excuse that because it is a very difficult problem to the medical profession, and if it is difficult for those who are qualified, it is still more difficult for the layman.
I want to confine myself particularly to the administration in the West Indian islands. I would respectfully remind the Committee that in these islands officialdom is paramount all the time. In most islands the people have absolutely no chance of expressing their views at all, and in those islands in which there is a chance of expressing their views, the franchise is restricted to a few so that practically the bulk of the population are shut out. Reference is made to the question of reducing the costs of administration. I agree with the remark that was made that the Governorships of the Windward and Leeward islands should be abolished. That would save at least £7,000. I do not think that this Committee realise how year after year grants have to be made by the Imperial Government to those islands, many of which have a lower public debt than we have in this country. Year after year, for example, Dominica has been getting grants; in 1925–26 an Imperial grant of £30,000, in 1926–27 an Imperial grant of £24,500; in 1927–28 an Imperial grant of £8,500; and so on.
All this money could be saved if only the local people had a chance, by the extension of democratic government, to govern themselves. The time has now come when the West Indian Colonies should have a chance of being able to have some say in the matter of the cost of the administration. Money could be saved in many ways. It could be saved, for example, by having a democratic system such as has been advocated by the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies with regard to Ceylon. Money would be saved in various ways by making it possible for people to have a say in the matter. It would save groups of salaries. In most of these islands, many of which are only 12 miles broad by 16 miles long, there is a Chief Justice, at a salary of £1,000, an Attorney-General, a
Treasurer, a Colonial Secretary and so on, all drawing salaries. It has been urged time and time again by the West Indians themselves that they are being asked to bear a cost of administration which cannot possibly be justified in any possible way, either by the resources of the Colony, by population, or in any other way.
All that I want to do is to put in a plea for these people and to ask the Under-Secretary of State whether, in his reply with regard to this matter, he will give some hope to these people who are constantly asking the Colonial Office for an extension of democratic government in order that they may save money by way of taxation, and by way of reducing administrative costs and things of that kind. I hope that he will be able to do something, and give these people some hope in the near future that the Labour Government are going to do something in that direction. The Labour Government have appointed many Commissions, and, therefore, one more Commission would not make very much difference. These islands can bear the cost of a Commission. A Commission has been promised on the question of education. Why stop at education? Why not send out a Commission to investigate the whole question of the costs of administration in these Colonies and the abolition of governorships.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dunnico): I think that the hon. Member is getting too far afield.

Dr. MORGAN: I am sorry, Mr. Dunnico, but I am only dealing with the question of administration. I am culy asking that the request made by these Colonies that the cost of their administration should be reduced should be looked at in a democratic way and considered favourably by the Colonial Office. That is all I am asking to-night. I could say a lot upon the sugar question, I could deal with the question of fiscal policy—the fiscal policy of the right hon. Gentleman opposite is all wrong—and I could deal with the question of how saving could be effected and the question of tariffs, but I want to ask my hon. Friend in his reply to-night to hold out some hope to these Colonies that the cost of administration will be reduced. It would also do good to the taxpayers
in this country if these continual grants to these Colonies could be avoided in the future.

Mr. ALBERY: In the course of the discussion of these Estimates, the one fact which has emerged this afternoon is that there seems to be a unanimous feeling on both sides of the Committee as to whether something cannot be done to reduce the cost of administration in the West Indies. I rise to ask the Minister if he can give us a further explanation about the manner in which these Estimates are presented. In a general way, I understand that the grants-in-aid of local revenues are in the main grants given to these various islands to cover deficiencies in the local administration, and that, on the other hand, special grants for certain West Indian islands arise more especially out of the state of emergency which has recently arisen in the islands. In dealing with the accounts, the two classes seem to be somewhat strangely mixed up. In the case of St. Lucia, which is under the heading "Grants-in-Aid of Local Revenues," there is a special note to the effect that this extra sum is required for, and is entirely due to, what I may call the present emergency. That is to say, loss of revenue through sugar. When you come to the second heading, there are Antigua and British Guiana. They appear in both categories. They are getting grants in aid of local administration, and also grants on account of the present emergency. Coming to the second category—special grants to certain West Indian Colonies—there is one island—St. Kitts—Nevis, which has had a special grant on account of the emergency, but it does not appear by these accounts to have any need, or to have had any need, for a grant-in-aid for administration. Could the Minister, in his reply, tell us something about that matter? How is it that this particular island, which suffered as much as other islands, is, apparently, not to be provided for by way of an extra grant in administration? It seems to me that these different accounts should be kept quite separate. It is desirable that one should be able to see over a period of years what money these different islands have received by way of administration grants pure and simple,
and also what moneys they have received as special grants.
There is another question I wish to ask the Minister. It is in connection with what he terms the special loan of £50,000 to British Guiana. Will he explain how that sum is treated in the accounts? In the Supplementary Estimate it is put down as a loan, but, as I understand it, it is, nevertheless, to be treated in the Estimates of this country as an expenditure. I do not understand how a thing can be treated in one account as a loan and in another account as current expenditure. If it is to be treated in these Estimates as a loan, there ought to be some other way of providing for it in our own Estimates. The hon. Gentleman, in his opening speech, said something about transferring a sum of £50,000—I take it that it was the same £50,000—from the Crown Agents to the Treasury Account. Can he give some explanation of that? If it is, in fact, a loan as far as British Guiana is concerned, will it not be the first time that a loan actually debited to a British Colony has been transferred from the Crown Agents' account and debited to the Treasury?

Sir HENRY BETTERTON: While we are on these Estimates, I desire to say a word or two in reference to one item which appears on page 5 and deals with the Transjordan Frontier Force. As the Committee may remember I was one of the members of the Commission who went out in the autumn before last to inquire into the disturbances of August, 1929. I am quite certain that I speak both for the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell) and also for the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris), when I say that that country and this country owe a very great debt of gratitude to the action of the Transjordan Frontier Force during those disturbances. May I in a word or two state, first of all, what their constitution is and what they did? As the Committee may know, there are in the Transjordan Frontier Force four companies. I am not at all sure whether one of them is mechanised. At that time there were three horse companies and one camel company, and at the time of the outbreak three out of the four companies were at Zerka which is their headquarters away in the desert about
100 miles east of Jerusalem. The force consisted, and does now, as far as I know, of 630 or 640 men, and is commanded by a British officer of great distinction in Colonel Shute, being recruited partly from Moslem Arabs, Christian Arabs, Sudanese and Jews. I was very much struck by the successful effort of the commanding officer of that force to foster a spirit of esprit de corps in the regiment, and to impress upon them that they are a military force owing allegiance to His Majesty the King, and that it is no business or concern of theirs to have anything to do with local politics.
How successful that training has been was shown by what happened during the disturbances of August, 1929. So far as I recollect—I have not had time to refresh my memory as to the details—a message came to them about 4.30 on 23rd August that disturbances had broken out. That evening the camel company set off for Jericho and reached Jericho next afternoon, performing the astonishing feat of marching 90 kilometres in 18 hours, the temperature at the time being 115 in the shade. The horse company, I think it was "C" company, was sent out to a place called Jisz-Mejamieh, which is higher up the Jordan, for the purpose, in part, of protecting the great Ruttenberg works. One detachment of that company was sent to Bersan and another detachment of the company was sent up to Safed, places where disturbances were apprehended. Both detachments were for a considerable time under the command of local officers, and those local officers in command of small detachments, by their action, undoubtedly prevented the outbreaks from assuming far greater proportions than they did. Nothing gave me more satisfaction than the fact that there was put in evidence before us at the Commission the appreciation of the Jews of the services which the Transjordan Frontier Force had rendered. I have in my hand a copy of a Memorandum which Mr. Bensvi, on behalf of the General Council of the Jewish community, dated 13th September, 1929, put before us. This is the last paragraph:
We should like particularly to thank the British troops, the British police and all those officers of the Civil Service who have volunteered as special constables and who have devoted time and energy and risked their lives for the lofty objective and
have thereby contributed to the restoration of quiet, to our guests, the Oxford students, who have cared neither for their energy nor for their lives and have brought dear sacrifices, and to the Transjordan Frontier Force whose British officers and Whose men have distinguished themselves in the maintenance of order in the northern district.
A second note that I have is signed on behalf of the Workers' Federation of Mutual Colonies:
We certify that the officer, Amin Bek
he was one of the local officers in charge of one of the detachments of the horse company which was sent to Jisz-Mejamieh—
who was here from the 26th up till now, has suppressed two attacks on us by Arabs of the vicinity. We express our thanks to this officer and to the whole troop for their fine behaviour and devoted work in defending our colony and in restoring the good order.
The place from which that note was written is Beit Alfa. One of the detachments of which I spoke was sent to Beit Alfa to protect that colony, which was threatened with attack. The colony was, indeed, very seriously attacked, and it is a matter of great congratulation that while this detachment of the Frontier Force was there—I think I am right in what I say—not a Jew was either wounded or killed.
This force, and its constitution and its action, may not be as well known in this country and in this House as they ought to be, and on that account I wish to make this recognition of the work they did, because I feel the Committee would like to know it. I did not see the camel company, but I saw the other three companies on many occasions, and no one who saw them could fail to be impressed by the appearance, general turn-out and behaviour of the troops. I am certain that they are a very fine force, of which the officers, and particularly Colonel Shute, may be extremely proud, and of which this House and this country should be proud also.

Major GEORGE DAVIES: It is true that, generally speaking,
East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet
but they do meet on page 5 of this Supplementary Estimate. I do not apologise, even after the eloquent description of the Iraq defence force to which we have just listened, for bringing back the Debate for a short time to the question of the
West Indian colonies. My interest and my limited knowledge are confined more to that part of the globe than to the Middle or the Far East. In reading through the Supplementary Estimate, I am appalled by the proof of how entirely inadequate a grasp His Majesty's Government have of the problem that is arising in that old colony of ours, the West Indies. It seems as if it is being treated rather on the same lines that we have tried to treat a similar problem here at home. When I see in this Estimate that we are giving a grant-in-aid of the expenses of administration necessitated by a fall in revenue owing to the sugar crisis, and that a little later on I find that there is provision for expenditure for the relief of unemployment due to the present crisis, I ask myself what is the use of frittering away the taxpayers' money of this country on that kind of thing, tinkering with the mere fringe of the problem and not approaching a solution of the real problem.
On previous occasions the attention of whatever Government has been in office has been called to the world crisis in the commodity of sugar, which has such a menacing outlook in the West Indies. His Majesty's present Government sent out the Olivier Commission to investigate the situation there, and they paid very scant attention to the very urgent report of the Commission. The method of approach to the problem in the Supplementary Estimate is trifling, because it does not envisage the situation. Even if we admit that the amount of expenditure in the Supplementary Estimate is trivial, it is waste when directed in this particular way. What is the policy of the Government on the broad issue involved? It is not as if the West Indian Colonies were merely a part of our Colonial Empire which happens to have been struck by one isolated episode, whether geographical, industrial or financial. There is provision for making good the results of hurricane damage. To that I take no exception, but if we are going to give a grant-in-aid of the unemployment crisis and we are not to consider the causes that are producing that crisis, and if we are not going to deal with it except by handing across the water a bit of dough, it is a very inadequate way of trying to deal with the problem.
I should like to get from a representative of the Government some idea of what His Majesty's Government's attitude is towards the Chadbourne scheme in connection with the sugar industry. I take it that hon. Members are familiar to some extent with that proposal. It is one of the methods of control reduction and regulation of output, but it is something more than that. It seeks to deal with the enormous glut that there is in the world to-day, to take that off the immediate market and to spread it over a series of years. The West Indies being chiefly concerned with the sugar industry are, of course, very properly concerned in whatever the solution of the problem is to be. The validity of the assistance that we are proposing to give in this Estimate depends a good deal on a much wider view. To what extent, for example, are the West Indies to be included in the proposals of that undertaking? It is an international matter and the Government must know something about it and must have made up their minds in connection with it. It purposes to deal with all sugar exporting countries and the West Indies are a sugar exporting country—they are concerned very vitally.
That brings me to my second point, and that is that we have in the West Indies a portion of our colonial empire which is under the handicap that its industry is practically on one leg. It has always been a bad thing to put all your eggs into one basket. The sugar industry in the West Indies was developed many decades ago. It is true that in certain of the islands attempts have been made successfully to establish alternate industries, such as bananas and fruits of various sorts, but very many fruits except the citrons fruits, are difficult to transport in a good condition. Sugar is a commodity that can always be transported and therefore it is eminently suited for countries situated in the tropical belt. If these countries are confined mainly to one industry, it becomes in one respect a simple matter and in another a very difficult matter. The Government ought to take up a very definite action in their relationship to this particular industry and the proposals that they have to make should not be merely confined to giving a grant and saying: "Here is something which will help you to deal with your
people who are out of work this year." A much bigger question is involved.
7.0 p.m.
What is to be the policy of the future in view of the world price and the world glut of sugar? We have a very special responsibility, not only towards the industry from the point of view of the capital that is engaged in it, but from the point of view, which is equally important to hon. Members opposite, the occupation which is given to the population by this industry. The population is one for whom we have a very special responsibility. It has not merely "rowed," like Topsy, but has been artificially created by legislation—whether wise or foolish matters not—in the past. We have developed those islands to some extent with a non-indigenous population, and we have a responsibility for them which is greater from a moral point of view than in many other parts of the Empire. There is another equally important point to remember in regard to our present relationship to these colonies in their present distress. The United States has established, as an unshakeable foreign doctrine, what we know as the Monroe Doctrine, and it is well known that, only that the West Indies and other parts of our Empire were already under the British flag, the Monroe Doctrine would have prevented a lung stretch of coast,—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is not addressing himself to the Question before the Committee.

Major DAVIES: I am sorry that my views of what is in order do not coincide with yours, because I thought that was very vital in developing the geographical importance of these colonies, but, in view of your Ruling, I shall not proceed with that point. I do want, however, to impress on the Under-Secretary that we have a very special problem which this Supplementary Estimate apparently ignores. Our responsibility is to realise that, during our relationship to the West Indian colonies, we should be a party to any legislation taken by international action which seeks to benefit—

The DEPUTY-CHAIR MAN: On the Supplementary Estimates the hon. and gallant Member must not go into legislation; he must restrict his speech to matters of administration.

Major DAVIES: I am sorry that I misunderstood, but I hope the Under-Secretary will touch on that point in the remarks he has to make.

Dr. SHIELS: I feel sure that the Members of the Committee will agree that we have had a very interesting discussion on these Supplementary Estimates. Many important points have been brought forward in a helpful spirit and the Debate has been wonderfully free—especially considering certain of the problems involved—from purely party criticisms. I have taken a great many notes, and I shall try to deal with as many of the points made as possible, but if any hon. Members find I have not answered them, I hope they will realise that my omission was not intentional. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) raised a number of points. He spoke about Transjordan and put a point about the tribal control item which is costing £8,000. He expressed the hope that the Transjordan administration would be better able to preserve peace and order in the borders of that scattered territory. There has been certainly great difficulty in dealing with raids and counter-raids which have been traditional there, especially in the neighbourhood of the Southern frontier, but with a more mobile force and better intelligence service, it is hoped to secure better control of this disturbing element. Under present conditions there is always a danger of the relations with neighbouring territories being endangered. And there is no doubt of the discontent and unsettlement caused in Transjordan itself. Other Members have spoken of the importance of the progressive development of Transjordan. The Committee will agree that if the country's borders are more peaceful as a result of freedom from this raiding irritation, there will be more opportunity for the proper settlement and development of Transjordan. I can assure the right hon. Member that that point is well before us.
He also spoke about the Air Force in Iraq and of the relations between the Iraq Government and our Air Force in the future. The Treaty does not come into force until Iraq has become a member of the League of Nations and certainly not before 1932. Iraq is preparing for an Air Force of her own and two of our Air Force officers are training some
of her people. She has not, however, at the present time got an independent Air Force of her own. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the care we must exercise that our forces are not compelled to intervene in case of internal disturbances in any way that would offend the susceptibilities of our people and make them feel that these forces were not being used in a proper way. I can assure them that this will be kept in mind.
The right hon. Gentleman then became a little controversial and suggested that the Government have not done the best they might have done in regard to the West Indies. There seemed to be some little agreement with those sentiments from the other side of the Committee. I have noticed, however, on several occasions on which this subject has been raised that there has been a very great reluctance to come to grips with it, and to say which part of Lord Olivier's report should have been adopted by the Government. Should it have adopted the extra preference on sugar which the Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to give a year before, when, although not quite so advanced, the position the previous year was substantially the same?

Mr. AMERY: Surely the price of sugar was several pounds a ton higher?

Dr. SHIELS: Yes; but it was merely a stage of an obviously developing process, and would have been more easily dealt with at that time than it was for us at a later time. It cannot be denied that the Conservative Government at that time found themselves unable to do that which they reproached us later for not doing. With regard again to the question of an import board which naturally attracts many of my hon. Friends—I do not know if it attracts hon. Members opposite or not but I imagine not—we were faced with the fact that we could not have adopted that recommendation without adding to the cost to the consumer in this country of a staple article of diet. While therefore it is easy to reproach the Government, it was really a very difficult problem. Especially in view of later developments in our own country and the position in which we find ourselves to-day, it will, I think, be generally agreed that our action or inaction at that time was wise.
The right hon. Gentleman also spoke of the assistance which we were giving to British Guiana, and about the very difficult position of that country. He said he hoped that in the assistance we were giving we were not making conditions which would make it difficult for that country to emerge from its present position. The fact that out of a total of £162,000 to British Guiana nearly half is in the form of a free grant, shows that we are keeping that consideration in mind, while in regard to the other two loan items which make up the balance, the terms are extremely favourable. In the case of the loan for administrative expenses, although the final conditions are not determined, at least there will be no interest charge for five years, while, with regard to the works loan to the sugar industry, I have explained at the beginning that the terms on which that will be repaid are entirely conditional on the increasing prosperity of the sugar industry. The right hon. Gentleman will see that we have had these very important considerations he advanced in mind.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) brought up the question of the disturbances among the Caribs that took place in Dominica. I would like to express my appreciation of the fact that he took up the case of these people and brought it to our notice. These Caribs are an unfortunate remnant of an unfortunate people who, I am afraid, were not fairly dealt with by our own ancestors and the ancestors of certain other European nations. The dreadful destruction of life among them in earlier centuries is one of the tragedies of history. We agree that everything should be done to give these people not only a decent standard of life but to see that they have an opportunity for any development possible for them. At the same time the right hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) was right in saying, that while we must have every sympathy with them, they are a little difficult. They are not always easy to deal with as I think the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland would probably agree.
He has told us of the result of the legal proceedings. We sent word to the Governor that we wished to have a full account of these, and when it arrives my Noble Friend will certainly look into the
matter carefully. He will bear what the hon. Member has said in mind, and if he thinks a further inquiry is necessary he will remember what the hon. Member has said about the desirability of not making it a purely local administrative inquiry. I do not think the hon. Member was present when the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) took exception to his criticism of the naval method of propaganda or intimidation or whatever the hon. Member thought it was. I thought myself that the hon. Member was a little unjust to the Commander. I have read the report of the Commander of the "Delhi" and also that of the leader of the landing party, and so far as I can judge, the expedition and naval co-operation were conducted with great tact and skill.

Sir R. HAMILTON: I regret that I was not in my place when the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) spoke, but I had no desire to reflect on the way in which the landing party carried out their duties. My reflections were on the administrator in calling for a landing party.

Dr. SHIELS: I though the hon. Member objected to the searchlights and fireworks.

Sir R. HAMILTON: I said that the Caribs were very much frightened.

Dr. SHIELS: I have no doubt that they got some compensation in excitement which they would not get normally. At any rate, it was a very unfortunate occurrence. I hope we shall get it cleared up satisfactorily, and also that we shall be able to devise some method of bettering the conditions of the Caribs.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Can we have a statement from the Under-Secretary as to whether the Government think the administrator was or was not to blame on the facts before him in calling for a landing party rather than in sending more police?

Dr. SHIELS: I am not giving a Government decision, but, as far as I am personally concerned, I think the action was justified and that it was probably a wise thing to do in the circumstances. It was one of those matters on which it is difficult to decide, and I can give no official verdict upon it.
The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) drew attention to the efficiency of the Air Force in Iraq and the great saving in money which has resulted from using that Force rather than ground troops. We are glad to have his testimony. He indulged in a great deal of sympathy, obviously very sincere sympathy for the unfortunate Arabs who have been cleared away in order to increase the amenities of the Residency in Bagdad. I enjoyed his pleasantries and his thinly disguised allusions. The same subject was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Stafford. As a matter of fact the Iraq Government have undertaken to see that these villagers are taken to a happier and better place, and that they will not suffer for the advantages accruing to the Residency by their absence. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull had a good deal to say about Transjordan and what should be done there. I listened with great respect to his suggestions, but I think he exaggerated the fertility of the country. He was wrong in saying that the Transjordan Frontier Force could not be used in Palestine. My reply on this point was anticipated by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir H. Betterton) who paid a well-deserved tribute to the Transjordan Frontier Force especially for the work it did during the disturbances. It is well to note that it proved that it is a Force which can be used in such a case, where, obviously, it was faced with much difficulty. As a matter of fart the effective work of the Transjordan Frontier Force probably saved many lives.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am sorry if I made that mistake and I can quite see how it occurred. It was some of the Palestine Police who were not reliable and if I made any reflection on a very fine force I am glad to withdraw.

Dr. SHIELS: The hon. and gallant Member did make it clear that he admired the Force and thought a great deal of its efficiency and smartness. In spite of the racial composition of a great bulk of the Force it has been tried and not found wanting. My hon. and learned Friend also asked me a question about the Development Loan. I am sorry that I am not in a position to say
anything about the conditions of that loan. The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour) made one point in regard to the Residency in Bagdad to which I must reply. He said that as we are going to be only a short time in Iraq why bother about spending this money in making the place agreeable? It is surely obvious that if Iraq in 1932 does enter the League of Nations our High Commissioner there will become our diplomatic representative and will require a residence. I am sure we all desire that it should be worthy of our representative. The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taylor) referred to Antigua and St. Kitts and the workers and their conditions in these Islands I am glad to be able to assure my hon. Friend that the distressed smallholder is as readily accepted for the relief work as the labourer and that in fact many of those employed are of the former class. Some complaint has been made by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) as to the form in which the Estimates are presented but I am not quite clear exactly what is the nature of the complaint. I have tried to go carefully over every item and make it quite clear what each means, and I hope I have largely succeeded.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin) spoke about mechanical transport in connection with the Forces in Palestine. It is true that there has been added to the Transjordan Frontier Force one mechanised company making five companies in all, and the Air Force also has mechanical transport. He also asked about the defence of the Jewish Colonies. One of our first actions after receiving the Shaw report was to send Inspector - General Dowbiggin from Ceylon to Palestine to go over the whole of the police organisation and inter alia to recommend any increase in the number of sealed armouries if he thought it necessary. His recommendations have been carried out and there is a larger number of sealed armouries now than there was previously. The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd) paid a tribute to the West Indian people and the way they are facing their difficulties at the present time. We all agree. He spoke about Canada and the closer commercial relations which are developing between
Canada and the West Indies, a process which we hope will be still more active in the future. He also referred to British Guiana. One of the unfortunate things about British Guiana is that we are not able to develop alternative industries as we have been able to do in some of the islands of the West Indies. We nave tried to develop the rice growing but any other crop seems to be difficult to establish. It is true that the country has great timber reserves, but as far as I understand the timber is of the heavy variety which is not now so fashionable, as it used to be and for which the market is small.
That is one of the reasons why it is difficult to do what seems to be the obvious thing in a country with a great forest belt behind it, that is to make roads and open up the country and get a big revenue from the timber. We are, however, paying great attention to the question of rice. A rice expert has been sent out by the Empire Marketing Board and has been of very great help. The hon. Member also spoke about commercial proposals for roads in British Guiana. Negotiations were entered into with a company but I understand that the conditions were so onerous financially that British Guiana could not accept them. While we are very anxious that roads should be constructed to develop the Colony we would require to have them made on more favourable terms than were available in recent negotiations.
The hon. and gallant Member for North West Hull (Sir L. Ward) spoke of the expenses of administration, and took the very obvious point that in some of the islands we are giving loans to assist in administration expenses. He asked why, if their revenue is down, they do not economise? It has to be remembered, however, that in some of the sugar colonies a substantial part of the revenue comes from export duties on sugar, and now in order to help their planters they have had to remove the export duties. It is because of this loss of revenue as well as that of import duties that we give these grants of assistance, not so much to assist administrative charges as to make up a source of income which has disappeared. The hon. and gallant Member spoke some very interesting words about the future of the
sugar industry, and so did the right hon. Member for Stafford, who has taken a great interest in this subject. I do not need to emphasise all that they have said. It is a very difficult problem, and in the application of science, as the right hon. Gentleman said, we have been somewhat behindhand compared with other countries. But the increased application of science and research, unless something else is done, will intensify our problem. Some method of reorganisation of the whole industry will be necessary. There have been unofficial efforts made to bring this about, and I shall certainly look with interest to see if something of this kind can be made successful.
The development of fruit growing as an alternative is one of the greatest hopes in many of these islands. Reference was also made to the importance of communications. There has been a great improvement in that connection in the West Indies. There has been considerable air development, and no doubt if that could be further advanced it would be of great advantage to the islands. The hon. Member for Londonderry said that there were two new British battalions in Palestine, and he asked where they came from. I am sorry I cannot tell him. The right hon. Member for Stafford brought up another interesting subject, the question of the federation of groups of islands in the West Indies, and he spoke of the saving that might be effected by reducing the number of governors and by co-ordinating the administration. I do not know whether there is a great saving to be effected in that way. It certainly looks promising, but the distances between the islands are considerable, and it is always necessary to have agents of Government in the islands. But certainly it is a subject which is now being considered. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Morgan) also spoke on this subject. We have also had representations, unofficial and official, from the West Indies, calling attention to it and asking that it be considered. I certainly can say that it is being gone into, and that efforts are being made to ascertain local opinion in the West Indies more fully than we have been able to do up to the present time.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the interest of the Noble Earl the
Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) in British Guiana and about his anxiety as to whether some of the money to be spent in British Guiana is to help in solving the malaria problem. He put a further question by asking what is to be done with the money to be spent in British Guiana. The money is to be expended under the following heads: (1) Housing and sanitation; (2) pure water supply; (3) construction of light railways; (4) reclamation of land; (5) drainage improvements (6) irrigation improvements. That is a great variety of subjects, all good in themselves, and some have special reference to malaria. I do not know whether there is any money to be spent in the settlement of smallholders. That is a point of which I will take note. The right hon. Member for Stafford seemed to think that in addition to rice we might develop ground nuts in British Guiana. I am not in a position to speak about that, but I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman raise the subject and we shall take it into consideration.
The hon. Member for Gravesend spoke about the form of the accounts. I am sorry I did not quite grasp what was his complaint. He spoke of grants-in-aid of administration being given in the case of some Colonies and not in others. As I explained before, it is the sugar Colonies, depending largely for revenue on the export duty on sugar, which required this assistance. Others like St. Lucia, which is not a sugar Colony, do not require the same assistance.

Mr. ALBERY: There is a standing example in St. Kitts and Nevis. There you have had to give a grant, owing to the sugar difficulties but no grant-in-aid of administration.

Dr. SHIELS: There are differences in different Colonies. The differences arise mainly where they are sugar Colonies unless they have substantial industries of another kind. The hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil (Major Davies) spoke of the relation of the sugar industry in the West Indies to world conditions. I agree with a good deal of what he said, but as he ultimately got out of order I am sorry that I cannot follow him. I have tried to explain the various points on which I have been asked questions. I hope the Committee will agree that I
have been able to give sufficient reasons to justify the passing of the Votes.

Mr. ALBERY: I tried to make myself clear, but the Under-Secretary and another hon. Member were engaged in conversation at the time. What I drew attention to was this: In the Estimates are grants for expenditure in relief of unemployment due to the crisis in the sugar industry in the West Indies. You have granted £7,000 to St. Kitts and Nevis. I asked the Under-Secretary to explain to the Committee how it is that that island had to be granted £7,000 on account of the sugar crisis and does not appear to be having a grant-in-aid of administration. How is it that some islands need a grant on account of sugar and not for administration?

Dr. SHIELS: I am sorry that I did not understand. The hon. Member has made his point clear now. The reason in the particular case of St. Kitts was that there was an unexpended balance which could be used for administration, but was not available in other colonies.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: On a point of Order. I wish to make a suggestion which may be for the convenience of the Committee. It is that we should follow the precedent which was set in the discussion on the Financial Resolution, and discuss both of the Amendments on the Paper, on the first Amendment, afterwards taking two Divisions, if it should be found necessary to do so.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman is one which would suit the convenience of the Committee. I understand that the first Amendment on the Paper will be moved and that a discussion will then take place covering both Amendments, with the understanding
that the Amendments can then be divided upon separately.

CLAUSE 1.—(Increase of limit of Treasury advances.)

Sir HILTON YOUNG: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, to leave out the word "ninety," and to insert instead thereof the word "eighty."
I am obliged to you, Mr. Dunnico, for your Ruling which will be of assistance to the Committee. The object of the Amendment is to reduce the maximum limit of borrowing from £90,000,000 to £80,000,000. The Committee well apprehends that the Government are making the unusual proposal of increasing the limit, not by the £10,000,000 which has unfortunately, become the normal amount of increase in these cases, but by the abnormal amount of £20,000,000 at one jump. The situation which will result from that remarkable action on the part of the Government is so startlingly clear, that but few words are needed to support this Amendment. I base the necessity for this Amendment entirely on the urgent necessity for maintaining Parliamentary control over finance, at a season when anxieties about the state of our national finances are rising very high. I ask the Committee to consider the present state of affairs. It is not in dispute that public opinion is thoroughly nervous and alarmed about the outcome of this year's finances. It is not in dispute that we are moving rapidly towards a large deficit. It is not in dispute, either, that this situation is very largely the result of unsound finance in connection with unemployment. That has been placed beyond the possibility of contradiction, since the remarkable light thrown upon the position by a recent pronouncement of prominent officials of the Treasury.
Further—and this is a point to which I specially direct the Committee's attentiontion—it is commonly agreed by all parties in the House of Commons that it is impossible to continue to finance unemployment on the present basis. It is not in controversy that the Government must produce some scheme for recasting the finances of unemployment. Nobody has used stronger language about the unsoundness of present methods than the Minister of Labour herself and this view has been confirmed in one of the most
dramatically startling pronouncements to which the House of Commons has ever listened, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the other day, from his place, with all formality, and with all the responsibility of his high office, told us that it was impossible that the finances of unemployment should continue upon their present basis and without reform.
It is the acknowledged duty of the Government to produce a scheme for financing unemployment which will be sound. What hold have we over the Government in order to keep them up to their duty in this respect? The only hold which the House of Commons has in that respect is the hold over finance. At the present time it is sufficiently discreditable for a Government to have to come back to the House of Commons for £10,000,000 under this head considering the time, the notice, the opportunities which they have had to recast and reestablish the finances of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. But that they should choose the present moment, when their duty is clear, when the desire of the country to be saved from this growth of insolvency is clear, when the duty of the House of Commons to insist upon reform is clear, to come back to the House of Commons for an abnormal extension of the period for which they are seeking further opportunity of idleness, is indeed discreditable. It is not only the finance of the fund that is in urgent need of reform—and urgency is the soul of this question—but the actual practice under the fund. There are acknowledged abuses. We may differ about the remedy for those abuses, but we are all agreed that there are abuses which need remedy.
I only mention one. There is the growth of a system under which the payment of unemployment benefit is being used in aid of part-time wages. Unemployment insurance finance is rapidly being erected, by a natural process of evolution, into a system of subsidies, by which large trades which are subject to the greatest depression are, in fact, being subsidised by smaller trades which are more prosperous. A recent document has been produced for the information of this House which clearly and brilliantly demonstrates that unemployment benefit is being converted into an insurance by which more prosperous trades are being
forced to subsidise less prosperous trades. That is a new abuse. It is a growing abuse, and it is an abuse which, if it is allowed time to saddle itself on the country, will be very difficult to shake off. Here is need for urgency. It is urgent that the Government should deal with these matters, but instead of any attempt to do so, they come here with the advertised intention of seeking, by the extension of these borrowing powers, further freedom to sit still and do nothing.
As I have said, the finances of the year are in urgent need of attention. I wish I could think that they were getting that attention, but I do not see any evidence of it in any strong opinions from representatives of the Treasury on the Front Bench to-day. The unemployment insurance scheme is in urgent need of reform to prevent the crystallisation of these evils to which I have referred. What is more, the House of Commons is in urgent need of an opportunity to make its opinion felt upon these great financial questions. The charge brought against the House of Commons to-day is that of failure in its grip on control of finance. What are our opportunities for establishing control over the most prominent financial question of the day, namely, unemployment insurance? Those opportunities are found in these recurring Measures seeking fresh borrowing powers. The opportunities are bad. They ought not to arise. We ought not to have this patchwork procedure, but the right lining to the cloud is that these miserable expedients do, at any rate, give the House of Commons an opportunity of expressing its views upon the burning question of the day. The Government now propose to deprive us even of this last opportunity of rounding-up their incompetence. This Measure, in its present form, is flouting public opinion; it is flouting the responsibilities of the House of Commons, and I appeal to the Committee to introduce into it at any rate some degree of recognition of the realities of the time by passing this Amendment.

Sir JOHN SIMON: I would like to second the Amendment. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) that the question raised by it is very important
at this time. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, in his speech on the Second Reading, said that discussions on Bills of this sort tended to be dull and dreary. We all appreciated what he meant, while, at the same time, we appreciated his own contribution, but this is a very important issue, because I am convinced that large numbers of the public outside regard the view which we take of this question as the test of the zeal and determination of Members of the House of Commons to retain control over public expenditure. We are told that there is a great decline in the influence of the House of Commons and the respect in which it is held. Nothing is more certain to produce such a result than action which might be understood to show that we are not really anxious to retain and exercise the essential prerogative of the House of Commons, namely, control over the expenditure of public money.
Consider the amazing conditions under which this proposal saw the light. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, some 10 days or a fortnight ago, made what was, by common consent, a most remarkable speech. He gave a cold shudder to every thinking citizen. The newspapers next morning were full of his very emphatic and very impressive utterance. But if you happened to walk down that morning to get the latest White Paper out of the Vote Office, you would find it to be a White Paper in connection with a Financial Resolution, the effect of which was that, for the first time in the history of provision for unemployment insurance, we were to be invited to vote as much as £20,000,000 additional borrowing power. It is astonishing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be urging us to pay close attention to the subject of control over expenditure, while at the very same moment the very same Government is making an entirely novel suggestion which means, if the Bill is passed in its present form, that we private Members of this House need not trouble our heads about unemployment insurance and its finance until well towards the close of the summer. Of course, the Minister of Labour will be busy, and we all recognise with what devotion she discharges her task, but is it not an assistance to her and her Department if public opinion and
House of Commons discussion are kept active and eager in the meantime?
8.0 p.m.
I am bound to add that, when we consider the history of the matter, we find that to not a few it is a history of delay and disappointment, and I am afraid that, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks has said, there are a great many people who think that it is a history of more than that. They think that it is a history of the shirking by the Government of a most unpleasant task—a task which nobody, I should think, would be anxious to take out of their hands, and in which they are entitled to our full support, but one which is continually being postponed, and on every occasion when it is postponed a new excuse is put forward for the postponement. I go back to the Unemployment Insurance Act which we discussed at the end of 1929. I always forget the names of these various Measures, but I think it was called the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1930. The right hon. Lady on that occasion made a very important pronouncement. I re-read the other day the speech which she made on the Financial Resolution. That Measure proposed to continue transitional benefit for a long period, and the Minister of Labour expressly said that she had chosen the period of 12 months for a particular reason. She might have proposed a longer or a shorter period, but, she said, the Government had selected the 12 months' period for a particular reason. The right hon. Lady said:
We have quite definitely limited this to 12 months. I informed the House when I introduced the Bill that we want this 12 months space because the Government have already set up a Committee which is at work upon that larger scheme IN which the right hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) so eloquently described.
That was the Government's view. That was inquiry number one of the Government at that time. They got their committee at work, but the right hon. Lady said that there were no new ideas. She said:
I may say quite definitely that there is absolutely nothing in that speech which has not already been in the minds of the Committee. There is no new idea that has come from that bench which is not already in the minds of the Committee set up to consider the larger question, namely, what is to be the plan by the time this Act expires of social relief on a more scientific basis."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1929; col. 1104, Vol. 232.]
The situation therefore was that in November, 1929, the Government came forward and said that they wanted another 12 months. They had their own committee working on this tremendous question, which I frankly and readily admit is one of the most important and elaborate questions which any Government could consider. The Government then said that they were grateful for any suggestions, but that all suggestions were already in their minds and, at the end of 12 months they would be in a different position because they were pursuing a more scientific basis which they would secure by the time the Act expired. I think the Government were very well-advised in asking for that 12 months, but it would have been a more satisfactory state of things if they had been able in the course of that 12 months to produce something. This very Bill to which I am referring is the Bill which has expired, and it is for that reason that it is necessary to extend transitional benefit for a further time. It is quite plain, when one looks at the history of the matter, that the Minister of Labour and the present Government at that time had a definite object which they were determined to pursue, and they were entitled to everybody's trust in pursuing it if they had pursued it diligently and without delay. The right hon. Lady said on the occasion of the Second Reading of that Bill—and she is probably familiar with this quotation, firs she has heard it several times lately:
With the concurrence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the transitional period is continued by the Bill for another year but on a different basis and with a definite objective …. The definite objective in view in continuing the transitional period is, as I have explained in my opening remarks, to give the Government time and opportunity to examine how best the able-bodied unemployed, who are now outside the insurance scheme, may be dealt with."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1929; cols. 749 and 750, Vol. 232.]
So far so good. I think we were all of us at that time quite prepared to wait. Bat the right hon. Lady was repudiating with indignation the idea that she was going to be among those who would come forward and ask for increased borrowing powers. In that same month of November she spoke, and she said:
If you came forward and wiped out the limit of borrowing powers at £40,000,000,
and went on borrowing to £50,000,000 or £60,000,000 it would be a dishonest course." Nobody could have used firmer language, and she gave her reasons for what she said would be a dishonest course. She said it would be a dishonest course
because it would be contracting a debt that you saw no possible way of paying off.
Does anybody see any possible way of paying the debt off now? Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer think that the course which the right hon. Lady describes as a dishonest course has now become honest on any principle of finance? The right hon. Lady continued:
Therefore, I have dismissed definitely from my consideration any question of increasing the borrowing powers of the fund."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1929; col. 1103, Vol. 232.]
While anybody can see what a tremendous difficulty the Government and the Department over which the right hon. Lady presides must be in—and I do not for one moment say that if you had another Government it would not find it difficult—what I think we are entitled to Observe is that at each stage of the story, which has lasted for 18 months, every time there has been a respite secured from the House of Commons, whether it be through the committee or by other means, it has turned out to be a mere excuse. We had during the year 1930 three separate occasions when an additional £10,000,000 was secured—in April, in July and in November. In April the excuse was that the 12 months was not up and that was a perfectly natural excuse. In July there was an entirely new excuse, and that was, "Now we have got rid of the idea of solving this by the Government committee"—[Interruption]. I hope hon. Members will correct me if I am wrong—[Interruption].

The CHAIRMAN: I must appeal for Order for the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Sir J. SIMON: I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will appreciate the fact that I am directly on the point of this Amendment. We are now for the first time in the history of this subject authorising twice as big a loan as we have ever authorised before, and my argument is that we should not do so because each previous occasion on which we have given the Government a respite has always led
to disappointment. I want to pursue my argument, because it seems to me to be important. When we came to July an entirely new reason was offered. Hon. Members opposite will, I hope, allow me to put it, because, whether or not it is pleasing to hear these things in the House, it is quite certain that people outside in the country are tired of seeing us idly and indifferently going on authorising a further expenditure of public money without getting control. The excuse given by the Government last July was that they had just secured a three-party committee. The Prime Minister said some very complimentary things about the committee and about the co-operation of all parties in the House, and because of the new idea the House of Commons was pleased to authorise another £10,000,000 loan. So we came to last November, and then, equally suddenly, a new excuse emerged, and the new excuse was that the three-party committee had not been able to do anything satisfactorily—they have not received much praise after all—and so we have an entirely new idea. That new idea was to have a Royal Commission. I took part in the Debate last November, and I ventured then to point out that if there was going to be a Royal Commission it ought to have been appointed long ago. But the Commission was appointed quite plainly on the basis that it was going to be one of those Royal Commissions which acts exceedingly quickly, and the right hon. Lady was confident that she would be able to produce from that Royal Commission the relevant results quite early in the present Spring.
That being the history of the matter, it is disappointing to find that now, for the first time in this melancholy story, on the eve of the day when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his speech, we are invited to authorise twice as big a loan and to give the Government twice as long a period in which to feel secure from any House of Commons criticism and to bring that period to an end some time in the month of August when everybody will be wanting to go on their holidays—[Interruption]—and when we shall be told that it is impossible to deal with anything satisfactorily for some months to come. I would strongly urge on the Committee that this history shows that we are not in the least justified in
doubling the amount. Particularly is this the case when one considers the language used by important Treasury officials before this Royal Commission. Any argument to the contrary then becomes absurd. Here you have Sir Richard Hopkins saying:
On the other hand, continued State borrowing on the present vast scale without adequate provision for repayment by the fund would quickly call in question the stability of the British financial system.
We find him saying that this additional borrowing is now on a scale which in substance obliterates the effect on the Sinking Fund and that these vast Treasury loans, of which the present is an example, represent in effect State borrowing to relieve current State obligations at the expense of the future. We find him saying also that this is the ordinary and well-recognised sign of an unbalanced budget. I am at a complete loss to understand how the Chancellor of the Exchequer one day can get up and make such a speech as he made to this House, and why next day his colleague should make this wholly exceptional claim upon the House of Commons. I take note of what I understand to be the right hon. Lady's specific assurance that legislation must be proposed and passed before the House of Commons rises for the Autumn Recess.

Miss BONDFIELD: That must depend upon the nature of the financial provision made.

Sir J. SIMON: I repeat that I take note of the Minister's specific assurance that legislation must be proposed and passed—legislation which is to recast unemployment insurance—before the House rises for the Autumn Recess. I do not myself think that the right hon. Lady ought to be anything but grateful if the Committee here were to show, as I believe they ought to show, a determination to keep a close interest in this subject in the intervening time. After all, the tragic fact is plain enough—I am not blaming anybody, and I am not saying that speeches can get rid of it—it is that of the insured population of this country over 21 per cent. are unemployed and only 10 per cent. can receive benefit out of the fund on an actuarial basis.

Mr. TINKER: On a point of Order, Mr. Chairman. May I ask your Ruling
as to whether this is not a Second Reading speech entirely?

The CHAIRMAN: I understand that it has been agreed, with the consent of the Committee, that the two Amendments on the Paper shall be discussed at the same time. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, as far as I can see, is dealing with the finance of the scheme.

Sir J. SIMON: I am not at all desirous of taking up any length of time, and I am in the hands of the Committee, but I think I was speaking quite directly to this Amendment when I was pointing out that it is a very remarkable thing that we should be asked to part with all interest in this subject for many months to come at a time when the facts are that 21 per cent. of the insured population are unemployed and only 10 per cent. of them are really receiving benefit out of a fund on an actuarial basis.
The last point I wanted to make is this. It seems to me that so long as the present scheme goes on and so long as the Committee of the House of Commons does not take a more active interest in altering it then this result arises. There is confusion in the public mind—and there must be—between the insured person who draws on the fund from which he has a right to claim a share as an insured member and those people who, whatever their anxieties—no one denies their hardships—have made no such contribution, and are in receipt of State relief. It is a most cruel wrong done to those who have by contributions from themselves, from their employers, and from the State, really maintained themselves as members of an actuarial scheme. That is the reason why at the present time, if you go into the country, you find that the use of this horrible word "dole" has become universal, and men and women, who are entitled to say that they at least belong to a proper insurance fund, and are accredited members of a proper insurance scheme, are being lumped together in the public judgment and the public mind with another set of people whose misfortunes may be just as great, but who are certainly not entitled to proclaim that they are being provided for on an insurance basis.
I am sorry if hon. Gentlemen opposite think that I have said more than I should, but I am speaking with the
greatest sincerity when I say that, if you wish the House of Commons to recover the authority which it is very much in danger of losing in the judgment of the nation, it can only be by our reasserting our real authority over the expenditure of public money. The old traditional authority and power that this House has over public finance was gained and secured at a time when we were insisting upon it against the Crown, but the vigour with which the House of Commons then insisted upon it against the Crown was far greater than the vigour with which in these days they ever insist upon it against His Majesty's Ministers. All this talk about economy and thrift is perfectly worthless unless the representatives of the people in this House are determined to preserve their power of controlling the course of public expenditure.

Miss BONDFIELD: I am at a loss to understand why the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the M ember for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) was ever made, for there was nothing in it that has not been more tersely said from the Conservative benches. As to why £20,000,000 is being asked for instead of £10,000,000, there is a perfectly simple and obvious answer. It is that, owing to the economic blizzard, there are more people on the register to-day than there were when the last Vote was being asked for. While it is true that I am three months behind in my dates—not 12 months—the Circumstances that have intervened since the 1929 speech was made are such as nobody ever contemplated at that time. We have had the intervening dislocation in connection with the public assistance administration owing to the difficulty of putting the Local Government Act into operation. That has caused delay in the consultations with regard to what may be possible in connection with other forms of assistance to the able-bodied unemployed. On top of that, there has been the tremendous increase in the register.
If hon. Members will study carefully the whole of my speeches and not merely pick out certain extracts which misrepresent the general tendency, they will find that my policy has been consistently in the direction of transferring the burden of the able-bodied to the taxes instead of to the rates, and of endeavour-
ing to secure that there shall be a recognition of the fact that the present basis of the fund is utterly inadequate for the burden which the law has placed upon it. The Section in the 1930 Act, the Act which administers the main part of the benefit, embodies an Amendment which was fought for by the Liberal party, and was put in the Act which I have to administer. The Liberal party, therefore, is the last section in the House which should take part in any criticism of the kind which we have heard. This is the Committee stage of the Bill. I cannot find that any other point has been raised in regard to the money side of the Amendment to which I need reply.
May I remind the Committee of what I have brought into the fund as the result of the policy which I have consistently advocated of trying to relieve the burden on the backs of the ratepayers, and of placing it on the backs of the taxpayers? I increased the revenue in 1929–30 by £7,500,000; in 1930–31 by £25,500,000 and in 1931–32 by £33,500,000. The previous Government did nothing but reduce the revenue of the fund, and, in so far as we have been overtaken by this great rise in the figures on the register, it is perfectly clear to those who study the estimates that, if the present register continues for the next three months, we cannot have money enough left to tide us over until the House of Commons reassembles in the autumn. That is a firm guarantee that the whole matter must come before the House again.
I want to correct the right hon. and learned Gentleman in a phrase which he used in quoting from my speech. He used the phrase, "legislation which must recast the Act." I do not know what the legislation will be like, and I did not say that. What I said was that I must come to this House for legislation before the House adjourned for the summer, and that what the nature of that legislation will be must depend to a very large extent, first, upon the recommendations of the Commission, and, second, on the degree to which these recommendations commend themselves to the House.

Sir J. SIMON: I did not understand the right hon. Lady's words to mean that she was merely saying to the House that
she would come back to ask for more borrowing powers, but that she would come to the House before the Summer Recess to make proposals for legislative changes of some sort in connection with the scheme. Are we to understand that her assurance to the House is that she will then merely come back for more money?

Miss BONDFIELD: My answer was that we must not allow the finances of this fund to get out of the control of the House, and I was merely making the point specifically in relation to the fund that it is obvious that I must come back to the House, because I have not asked for enough money to carry me over the Autumn Recess. That was the point which the right hon. and learned Member specifically raised.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As I understand the definite promise of the Minister, she quite clearly undertook, on behalf of the Government—and this has been mentioned twice—to come back to pass legislation before the House rose for the Autumn Recess. It was quite clear and specific that legislation was not for further borrowing powers and further control of the finances of the House; it was to pass legislation remodelling or reforming the substance of the unemployment insurance system. I am not for a moment assuming that she stated that she would undertake to follow the report of the Royal Commission in every jot and tittle.

Sir J. SIMON: I do not know whether—

Miss BONDFIELD: rose—

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Robert Young): I am at a loss to know who is in possession of the Committee.

Sir A. STEEL-MALTLAND: I am perfectly willing to give way either to the Minister or to the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) in order to clear up this important point. We were promised legislation not merely to get more borrowing powers, but we were promised legislation to deal with the question of the reform of the unemployment insurance system after the consideration of the report of the Royal Commission. Here are her words:
We have specially asked that they"—
the Commission—
will give us a report by the end of May. We have pointed out that we must legislate before the House rises for the Autumn Recess."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1931; col. 913, Vol. 248.]
That report, be it noted, was to come before the legislation before the Autumn Recess. That the legislation before the Autumn Recess was connected with the Royal Commission is clearly shown by what follows on the ensuing page:
With regard to the length of extension, here again, in view of the fact that the end of May is the earliest time at which we can expect the Commission to report or make any recommendations, and that after May those recommendations won Id have to be carefully considered and a Bill prepared and discussed by the House, and Parliament would have to make up its mind on it, it is clear that we could not expect to get legislation through before the end of the Summer Recess, and it will be some period, after that before it will be possible to get it into operation. Therefore, the earliest date at which any legislation could become effective would be October, or perhaps even later."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1931; col. 915, Vol. 248.]
If I am correct in my interpretation, that quite clearly was an undertaking to bring in legislation after the consideration of the Report of the Commission, and reorganising—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am not pinning the right hon. Lady to every detail of the Commission's report, but to a readiness to reorganise the unemployment insurance system or to legislate with regard to it. I think I have correctly interpreted the right hon. Lady.

Miss BONDFIELD: This is a storm in a teacup. What the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) said was that I had promised legislation which must recast the Act. At Once I wanted to correct that, because it was putting words into my mouth that I had never used. I stand by every word that is in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: May I ask the right hon. Lady what is the meaning of the words that she uttered—is it not, to deal with the substance and the essence and the whole of the machinery and the conditions of unemployment insurance, if need be, in the light of the report of that. Royal Commission?

Miss BONDFIELD indicated assent.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is. Then I am grateful to the Minister. It is to deal with the substance and the whole nature of the unemployment insurance system in the light of the Royal Commission.

Miss BONDFIELD: This is very important. I do not want to have it said afterwards that I allowed something to go by default which may be interpreted in another way. I was most careful to check the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) last night when he attributed to me a phrase which I had not used. For that express purpose, I repeated my words, and had them embodied in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I stand by those words. It is perfectly clear that they do not say that I am going to recast the Act, but that I shall await the recommendations of the Commission, a Bill will then be submitted to this House, and Parliament will decide how much or how little of the recommendations of the Commission are going to be embodied in it.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: I understand that it has been decided that wide latitude will be allowed in this discussion this evening.

The CHAIRMAN: I did not understand that. I understand that it was decided to take these two Amendments together.

Mr. TAYLOR: I understood that we were to discuss these two Amendments together, and you allowed the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) to make a speech which might have been more appropriately delivered on the Second Reading of the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was dealing with the borrowing powers of the fund, which I have decided is in order on this Amendment.

Mr. TAYLOR: I do not wish to challenge your Ruling, and I bow to your superior judgment, but although I listened very carefully to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said I did not myself see much relevance in it to the Amendments on the Paper. But I rise to ask the right hon. Lady whether she can give me an answer to a question raised when the Financial Resolution was before the House, which relates to a development in connection with
administration which I view with some alarm. I think I shall be in order in putting this question forward as a strong reason why the first Amendment should be defeated. The point is that recently we have had an umpire's decision which lays it down that in all cases where men have been out of work for five years or longer the presumption arises that they are not normally insurable.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not know that there is anything in this Bill dealing with the umpire's decision.

Mr. TAYLOR: With all respect, when we are voting money we are entitled to ask for an assurance from the Minister that there will be proper administration of what is voted.

The CHAIRMAN: The Bill is promoted for the purpose of extending the borrowing powers of the fund to £90,000,000, and there is an Amendment to limit that amount to £80,000,000, and any observations either for or against that reduction would be perfectly in order. But, as I understand it, the umpire is superior, in a way, even to the Minister, and this is not a. Bill, therefore, to deal with his powers.

Mr. TAYLOR: I am not attempting to deal with his powers. What I am trying to argue is that the first Amendment ought to be defeated because, if the Government are to do justice to a particular class, they should have at their disposal the amount of money proposed in the Bill. If I am out of order, I am very sorry, but at the same time I would like to have an assurance that the money will be properly spent. I was drawing the right hon. Lady's attention to an administrative proceeding in some parts of the country under which certain classes of people are being deprived of benefits.

The CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, but that point does not arise here. The question is whether the Minister shall be able to borrow up to the amount of £90,000,000 for unemployment insurance, and for the purpose of paying it as she has been paying it. We cannot call in question any decision given by an umpire.

Mr. TAYLOR: I am not calling in question a decision given by an umpire, but am pointing out to the right hon. Lady
that there is a special necessity to watch the administration of benefit as it affects a particular class of people. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument was devoted to the exposition of the principle that a certain class would be entitled to benefit on an insurance basis, and that certain other classes would no longer be entitled to benefit on that basis. I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be in favour of something being done for the classes which were no longer drawing benefit, and that he desired that they should be treated in an entirely different category. I think it will be permissible for me to draw the attention of the Minister of Labour to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, because we want some assurance that the interests of this particular class will be properly safeguarded. That is a very strong argument why the sum of money asked for should not be reduced. I am extremely sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley, who is so fond of drawing the attention of the Minister of Labour to what she has said on a previous occasion, did not find time to tell the House exactly what he would do with the large number of people who have long records of insurance, but, owing to the fact that they live in a depressed area, where the main industry has been depressed for a long time, are unable to get work.

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. and learned Gentleman would not be in order in replying to that question.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) made plain that the 10 per cent. of the unemployed who were not receiving benefit and were outside the actuarial basis should be dealt with in some other way than by insurance. I think on this point we are entitled to have some reply to the very serious statement which was made on this question by the right hon. Gentleman, because that statement applies to half of the number at present unemployed. We feel that some reply should be made. I do not think it will be denied—it has always been the case with your rulings, Mr. Chairman, and other rulings—that when a statement like that is made we are entitled to ask for a reply.

Mr. TINKER: That is why I rose to point out that the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley was making a Second Reading speech. I called attention to that point in order that we should be allowed to proceed on the same lines.

Mr. DIXEY: I think we ought to be told whether we are entitled to reply to the argument used by the right hon. and learned Member.

The CHAIRMAN: I have already given my Ruling on that point.

Mr. TAYLOR: I am most anxious to obey your Ruling and I thought, in view of the special latitude that was allowed to the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley I should be entitled to ask for some justification of the statement which he made. The question I wish to put to him is—

The CHAIRMAN: I could not allow the right hon. Gentleman to reply to the question, because it is not in order.

Mr. TAYLOR: Then I am at a loss to understand why the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman was delivered at all at this stage of the Bill. If your Ruling is that nobody can deal with what the right hon. Gentleman said, I have nothing more to say.

The CHAIRMAN: I did not say that the hon. Member could not deal with it. What I said was that he could not ask the right hon. Gentleman questions, and expect him to reply when I had ruled that the point raised was not in order.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Hon. Members opposite have been examining, like the rest of the country, the evidence given before the Royal Commission during the last week or so, and no doubt they have been just as shocked as the country is at the figures which have been disclosed by Treasury and other officials who have given evidence before the commission. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If they have not, it remains for the country to shock them, which undoubtedly it will do shortly. One of these statements was made by Mr. Bowers, the Accountant-General of the Ministry of Labour, and the point which he makes bears very much on our deliberations this evening. He said:
Further continuance of so large a debt makes the insurance scheme waterlogged. The hopelessness of repayment prevents the financial position from receiving the close and exacting attention which is required in so difficult a scheme. It is easy in such a situation to act as if it does not matter if the finance gets worse.
I suggest to the right hon. Lady, and not only to her, but to the whole of this Committee, that it is easy for all of us to act as though it does not matter if the finance gets worse, and that is what I feel in connection with this Amendment. Whatever view we may take here, the country will consider, if we extend the period which the Minister will have at her disposal before coming to the House again, that we may, and, as I think, rightly, be charged with acting as if it did not matter if the finance gets worse. After all, the right hon. Lady herself, although I am sure with the best intentions, is open to the charge that she has been acting during the past 18 months as though it did not matter if the finance got worse.

Mr. KELLY: Does the hon. Member suggest that people are getting benefit who are not entitled to benefit?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I am not on that point at all, but am on the purely financial point of this Bill, and the point of view from which the country is regarding it now. I remember the right hon. Lady saying 18 months ago that the fund was bankrupt, and at the same time she said that she refused to borrow, because the obvious objection to borrowing is that it is merely adding loads to the Insurance Fund and increasing the amount of interest which the fund has to pay to the Treasury. I would remind her, though I am sure she knows it very well, that Mr. Bowers, in his evidence, remarked the other day:
For the fund to borrow what it cannot repay is clearly indefensible.
Later on, in November, the right hon. Lady said shat it would be dishonest to come forward and ask for increased borrowing powers, because it would be contracting a debt which she saw no possible way of paying off. In spite of that good resolution, made just before the New Year, we borrowed £10,000,000 in March, £10,000,000 in July and £10,000,000 in November, and now we are asked to borrow £20,000,000. It is to be noted that up to the present moment we have kept
an interval of something like three months between the various occasions when the right hon. Lady has come to the House to ask for more money, and I am quite at a loss, and I think the country is at a loss, to understand why it should be necessary at this period, when things are very much worse than they were 18 months ago—and the fund was bankrupt then—to ask for a double extension of time and for double the amount of money.

Mr. SIMMONS: There are double the number of people.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: It cannot be said that there are double the number of people, because last Christmas the unemployment figure stood at 1,900,000, and it was quite sufficient for the right hon. Lady to borrow £10,000,000 then. I admit that there has since been a considerable increase, but I cannot think that that can justify asking the House, at a time when the fund is £70,000,000 in debt, to relax its control over the situation, to allow double the amount of money to be borrowed, and to allow a further period of five or six months before the House is asked for further sanctions. If that is not acting as the Accountant-General said, it is difficult to know what is. That is exactly the foundation of his charge, that we are acting as if it does not matter if the finance gets worse.
I would ask the right hon. Lady to bear in mind the fact that, as was pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), the House is the custodian of the finances of the country. The country at the present moment is very much disturbed at the financial prospect, and this is the very last time at which the House of Commons should relinquish its hold upon the, borrowing powers given to this fund and to the Minister of Labour. I quite understand hon. Gentlemen opposite, on the basis of some Utopia where it does not matter whether a nation exceeds its income or not, taking that point of view, but, as we are situated now, subject to most regrettable economic laws which decree that, if you live beyond your income, the day of reckoning is not long ahead, I think we should be unjustified in extending these powers; and the nation looks to the House of Commons to keep the tightest control it can upon the finan-
cial situation, and will expect this Amendment to be accepted.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: I am very glad indeed that the Minister has decided to resist this Amendment. The Mover of the Amendment, the last speaker, and, indeed, I think, all the speakers on the Opposition side to-night, referred to the statements which have been published by a certain official of the Treasury and by the Government Actuary. I want to say one or two things about those statements. I want to register, on behalf of the unemployed in my constituency, a protest against those two statements which have been published and which are being used by the Opposition on every possible occasion. There is to-day a concerted movement in all quarters to reduce the standard of life of the workers of this country. Throughout the great industries attacks are being made on wages, and now there is a concerted propaganda, in every quarter from which that propaganda can be launched, to reduce unemployment benefit at the earliest possible date. Let there be no mistake at all; the attack is now being made, and that is the real meaning of these. Amendments—unemployment benefit has got to be reduced at the earliest possible date. That, and nothing else, is what hon. Gentlemen opposite mean when they move this Amendment. The pronouncements of Treasury officials and of the Government Actuary are not sacred, and ought not to be treated as sacred. I would remind the Liberal party, who are here in such great numbers to-night in support of their new Leader, that their idea of a development loan to put the unemployed to work was opposed by just the same officials of the Treasury who to-day have published this Memorandum.
I want, further, to deal with the report of the Government Actuary. The Government Actuary gives the impression that, if it were not for certain married women, a few coal trimmers, and some football players, the fund would be solvent, and it would not be necessary to ask for this money. I have taken the opportunity to look through and read the minutes of the evidence given before the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance. If we take the married women, I find, looking through the evidence of the first three
days, in Appendix II, submitted by the Ministry of Labour, on page 82 of the first volume, a number of illustrative cases. What is the fact? These women who are derided, and who, according to the impression given to the public, are getting money for nothing, have been on the employment register for six or seven or more years, paying their contributions all that time. They have got married, and have gone out of work, and it is to their credit that they did not apply for benefit. They have been out of work and have not been drawing benefit.
I will not burden the Committee with detailed cases, but the average example is this: After being married and out of work for, perhaps, 15 months, they have signed on. They are perfectly entitled, by reason of their six or seven years of regular contributions, to anything that they get from the Employment Exchange, and it is to the credit of their honesty that they did not apply for it before. After all, what will happen? They will only be able to draw benefit for two or three months, because then their two years will have elapsed, and their benefit will be disallowed; and, if they are obtaining a few jobs during the week-end, in nine cases out of 10 those jobs are given to them through the Ministry of Labour, and, if they do not accept them, they lose their benefit for the whole of the rest of the week. So much for the question of the married women. I have looked in vain through the nine days' evidence for the other cases which have been quoted, and I cannot find a word about the coal trimmers, or the professional footballers, or the sandwich-men. The Government Actuary knows that it is nonsense. It is absurd, and he knows that it is absurd.
The fund is insolvent not because of a few professional footballers, or because there are certain exceptional cases, but because it was based on an average number of unemployed of 700,000. For the last 10 years the average has been double that figure, and now it is more. What justice is there in launching these attacks against the unemployed now, because there happen to be more than there were five or 10 years ago? If a certain rate of benefit was justified 10 or five years ago, it is equally justified and right for the unemployed to receive it now. You might as well blame a grown
man because he could not wear the clothes he used to wear when he was a child.
The most appalling suggestion is made by the Government Actuary that unemployed benefit should be cut down. People who make that suggestion and people who support the Government Actuary's report ought to live for a few weeks on the rate of unemployment benefit and then give their ideas upon it. These fantastic stories about coal trimmers, professional footballers and sandwich men are exceptional cases. They are not justified by the evidence. I have looked through the report of the Royal Commission and I can only find the name of coal trimmer mentioned once, and once in passing, in all the nine volumes. I should like to know, among the 2,500,000 who are drawing unemployment benefit, how many coal trimmers, footballers and sandwich men there are who are earning £6 10s. a week. This is not justified by evidence before the Royal Commission or from any other source. I congratulate the Minister on the evidence given by her Department. That puts quite a different conception on it. The officials of the Ministry know something about what is going on. The Divisional Controller for South Wales ought to know something about the coal trimmers at Swansea and Cardiff. He was asked what was his general conclusion. Mr. Wilfred Blakiston, the Divisional Controller of Labour for the Wales Division, said:
My general conclusion is that what is said about casual workers getting large sums of money as benefit at the same time as wages is not generally speaking true.
9.0 p.m.
I should like to see that sort of evidence given as great prominence as the statements that we have heard from hon. Members opposite. The evidence of the Ministry has counterbalanced this ill-informed evidence from people who know nothing about it. The Ministry officials have given their statistics and figures, and it is on them that we must rely. The Treasury make a tremendous pretence that the Unemployment. Insurance Fund is leading the country to bankruptcy, and undermining the stability of the nation. We are still spending 11s. out of every £ in paying for the last War and over 3s. in preparing for the next. The cost of unemployment insurance is 4d., and will ultimately be 7½d., in every £. As long as we are
spending 14s. in paying for the past War and preparing for the next it is a pretence that we cannot afford 7½d. to help the unemployed to keep body and soul together. It is a pretence to say that this item is going to be the last straw that breaks the camel's back, and that we must cut it down or we shall undermine the stability of the country. If we did, the charge would only go to the rates. It would have to be borne by the community. That is what hon. Members opposite want. They want the poor parts of the country to pay for the poor, which is the inevitable result of placing the burden of unemployment on the rates. These are partisan statements. I wish to place on record my protest, on behalf not only of the 6,000 unemployed in my constituency but of the 2,500,000 unemployed, the vast majority of whom are only taking that to which they are entitled from the Employment Exchanges. I make no excuse for protesting against these charges by a civil servant. The bulk of the Civil Service are loyal men and women who work for any Government whether Liberal, Conservative or Labour. We in this party have suffered before. In 1924 we knew what it was to he betrayed by people who are opposed to us in their political convictions.

The CHAIRMAN: I hope the hon. Member is not proceeding to criticise officials not here to defend themselves. There is a proper time for such criticism.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. Is not a Member of Parliament entitled to criticise officials?

The CHAIRMAN: He is entitled to criticise the work of officials at the right time through the Minister, which is when their responsibility as administrators comes up on the Estimates.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I accept your Ruling, Sir, in regard to the time, but are we not entitled to criticise officials?

The CHAIRMAN: For the moment I am only concerned with this Bill. I do not give Rulings dealing with matters not germane to the subject under discussion.

Mr. MAXTON: Here are two officials who have made public reports which are being used in connection with this whole matter of unemployment, and have gone
out of their way to do it. Surely, a Member of the House is entitled to comment on that.

Major ELLIOT: Further to that point of Order. Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has assumed the full responsibility for this statement.

Mr. MAXTON: That is another point. That is not a point of Order. It is a matter of etiquette.

Major ELLIOT: I am in your hands, Sir, as to whether it is a point of Order, but I think it is germane to the strict Rules of the House that criticism is applied to the Minister and not to the servants of the Minister, because the Minister takes full responsibility for the actions of his servants, and in this case the Chancellor of the Exchequer has himself specifically and emphatically taken responsibility for this statement as being accurate in fact and vouched for by himself.

The CHAIRMAN: My only object in interrupting the hon. Member was to warn him that it is not the custom for hon. Members to go out of their way to criticise officials. That could be done in a proper way through the Minister at the proper time. This is not the time for criticising officials, though the hon. Member may criticise statements made by them and leave it there.

Mr. BUCHANAN: It is most important. Treasury evidence has been used as a method of attacking this proposal and the main grounds of the attack of hon. Gentlemen opposite is the evidence which has been given. If hon. Members think that those officials have not acted rightly and their evidence is the subject of discussion here, I want to know from you, Sir Robert, what rule of the House prevents hon. Members from criticising the officials who have given the evidence which has given rise to this discussion?

The CHAIRMAN: I must bring the Committee back to the subject of the Debate. It will he within the recollection of the Committee that the hon. Gentleman was developing his argument by going back to 1924, and consequently that led him to extend his criticism beyond what I think was in order.

Mr. LAWTHER: Surely my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone) is entitled to use arguments
from 1924 when we have had arguments used to-night from the Flood?

Mr. MALONE: I think I am quite in order in referring to those statements because they were the substance of arguments used by hon. Members opposite. As regards the civil servants who wrote the statements, I thought that I made it clear in my opening remarks that I had no intention of making any criticism either of civil servants in general or of civil servants in particular. These two gentlemen may be most charming gentlemen. What I was criticising was the substance of the reports written and published under their names. I am merely speaking for two or three minutes in order to repudiate the statements on behalf of the unemployed in my constituency. I repeat again, those publications are grossly unfair. They are unjust and a grave injustice to the unemployed people of this country, and they ought to be repudiated, and I hope that they will be repudiated. I am very glad indeed that the Government have resisted the Amendment to-night, and I hope that they will go further and make it clear to the Committee, to the country, and to the unemployed that there is no question in their minds of reducing the benefit which unemployed men and women receive by a single halfpenny.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I do not intend to follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone) into his criticism of a certain very well-known report except to say that the report has had the full approval of the financial genius of the Socialist party, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. I wish to deal with the question which has been raised by hon. Members on the other side in connection with the Amendment to the financial proposal which we are supporting for the purpose of reducing the sum. Hon. Members opposite seem to imagine that in some way or other we wish to reduce the amount of benefit given under unemployment insurance. [An HON. MEMBER: "We are sure!"] I notice that that belief still lingers in the minds of some hon. Gentlemen opposite. I will endeavour to smooth out those irritable patches in their minds and to eliminate the false ideas which apparently have penetrated their minds. I do not remember having heard—and I have listened to many of these Debates—a prominent Member, or, indeed, any
other Member, of our party deliberately say that we were going to reduce the money.

Mr. LAWTHER: What about the employers—they are all members of your party—who sent round the circular?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Apparently, the hon. Member wants to speak and possibly he will have a chance later. I do not mean to allow interruptions to take me away from the provisions of the Financial Resolution for one minute. I was endeavouring to point out that in my view a Financial Resolution of this sort is in the worst interests of the unemployed people themselves. I object to the longer period, because it looks as if the Government for some reason or other were endeavouring to shelve the whole of this question. The Minister of Labour has, from time to time, been asked questions about the state of the finances of the fund. I have put questions to her, and I have found it extremely difficult to extract answers from her. After I had extracted some information, I found that all the time she had the information. It was there all the time, and all the time the Government Actuary knew the financial position of the fund under the various Acts. Why is there deliberate delay on the part of the Government and the hushing up of the facts on the part; of the right hon. Lady, the Minister? It is a point of view which I cannot understand. In this particular case we are told that this long period is wanted, in the first place, because it is no good coming to the House of Commons again in three months' time and asking for a further period just about the time when the Royal Commission is reporting.

Mr. COCKS: Where is the Conservative party?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The Members of the Conservative party, I have no doubt, are in various places at the present time, and as the hon. Member below the Gangway knows the only trouble with the Conservative party is that they are not allowed a General Election or they would he sitting on that side of the House. Again, I am being diverted from my main argument, which is to try and prove that the Minister on this occasion is not following such a straight course as we should like her to follow. She is putting forward the longer period,
which we are now proposing to reduce by our Amendment, because she does not like the idea of having to come to the House of Commons again at the end of three months. The House of Commons never objects to anyone who is a little frank, or even very frank, but what they dislike—and I have seen a great amount of it—is a person who is hushing up something. No one can quite understand what the Minister is trying to hide. We realise that in having to ask for this vast sum of money at the present time her conscience must prick her when she thinks of the 2,500,000 who are out of work and when she realises that the promises she made to them have been totally unkept. I notice that the Minister of Labour only smiles. It is typical of her callousness of heart in dealing with the unemployed at the present time. I would like every unemployed person in the country to be able to realise that she has taken this hard-hearted, callous stand, and that she just grins when anyone draws attention to her action. As far as our party are concerned, we are not hard-hearted in this matter. It is the Minister of Labour who is most hard-hearted in connection with this question.

Mr. LAWTHER: What about the treatment at Chester-le-Street?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member is not very good at interruptions, if I may be allowed so to remind him. It would be better at the present time not to vote so large a sum as £90,000,000. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hard-hearted!"] It is a matter of trying to see which is the best way of avoiding having to come to the House of Commons for this money and which is the best way of getting men and women back to work. The only way in which you can permanently cut down the sum is by getting the men and women of this country back to work. The fact that the Government are taking this long period, this unnecessarily long period, means, from the financial point of view, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out, that it is likely to cause great trouble and confusion. It means the putting of further burdens upon the country, and that means adding to the list of people out of work. That is one of the many reasons why I shall vote for decreasing the sum proposed.
I do not in any sense criticise the details as to how much per week is paid out, and I do not discuss the question as to the contribution of the State towards the fund, but I merely wish to make one clear and definite point that, so far as the partly unemployed people are concerned, so far as the fully out of work and the fully employed people are concerned, the document to which so much attention has been drawn has made reference not to the breaking of the law—they do not say that the law has been broken—but that the law is in such a position that you are bound under the present administration, if it is administered legally, to have a very large number of cases getting benefit, or in the case of employers a large number taking on people for so many days per week—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting wide of the subject before the Committee.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I was only using that as an illustration. I was endeavouring to show that so far as this sum is concerned we have a good reason why we should not lengthen the period and increase the amount of money. So far as the position of the fund is concerned, we find the Minister asking for a very large additional amount of money, and I should like to put a question to the Parliamentary Secretary, who is now in his place. The hon. Member is respected in all parts of the House. If he is going to reply on the Amendment I should like him to say if he has any explanation to offer in squaring this enormous increase in amount, after the representations that have been made to the House and to the country by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If he can give an explanation, it would be of immense value in the country.
It is essential that before we vote this large sum of money and before we add to the burdens of the country we should very carefully consider what it means. Let hon. Members remember that every pound that we add to the burden of the country means taking money out of the wages pool, and before we take anything out of the wages pool of the people of this country we ought to have the very strongest reasons for it. I hope that every Member of my party will vote for the Amendment, and
if there are any Liberals about, either now or later, I would ask them to remember that throughout the history of finance in this country, and we are dealing with a very big financial question to-night, it has always been one of the primary principles of the Liberal party that the first essential of a prosperous nation is that the people should be able to use their money in order to build up their trade and industry.

Mr. MANDER: I regret that I do not feel able to respond to the invitation offered to me by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). I rise to say a few words in opposition to the Amendment. I am very glad that the Government have decided not to accept the Amendment. Of course, I can understand that from the point of view of hon. Members above the Gangway they would very much like to have a Debate similar to this one three months hence, which would embarrass the Government and waste time. There would be no new facts before the House, and no object would be gained in having a Debate until we have before us the report of the Royal Commission, when something definite can be done. Therefore, from the strictly businesslike point of view of the economy of time, although hon. Members above the Gangway are not much interested in the economy of time, it is a wise decision not to accept the Amendment. Apart from the Royal Commission, it seems to me that there may be some sort of report, possibly an interim report, from another body which is studying the problem of unemployment. The League of Nations undertook recently to make a study of the whole problem, and it may be that when the matter again comes before the House there will be some report which will give us some guidance and help us in forming any necessary legislation. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can say whether he anticipates that anything of the kind will be then forthcoming.
When we resume the Debate one of the things that we shall have to deal with is the question of the so-called abuses under the present law. It is generally agreed that there are certain practices, perfectly legal in themselves, which are now carried out and which everyone who is interested in the unemployed, certainly the vast majority of
the unemployed people themselves, would like to see put right. The unemployed do not wish to see Clauses left in a Bill which enable cases to take place which no one seriously can attempt to defend.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Has the hon. Member been approached by any representative deputation of the unemployed complaining about anyone getting benefit?

Mr. MANDER: I think I am perfectly competent to speak in this House on behalf of my constituents, and I feel that they have every desire that I should address the House on the line that I am doing now.

The CHAIRMAN: I have been listening to the hon. Member, but he must not develop his argument.

Mr. MANDER: I bow to your Ruling. If it had not been for the intervention of the hon. Member for Gorbals I should not have referred to the matter again, but perhaps I might say one word in reply. The so-called legal abuses are strictly limited in number, and I believe that they are incapable of being defended by anybody. It is true to say that the vast majority of unemployed, something like 97 per cent., are from a legal, moral and humane point of view entitled to the allowances and benefit which they get. Except for a very small percentage, the overwhelming majority are willing and eager to get work at the earliest possible moment. I have heard stories, and I have made inquiries, about men who go day after day, when there is no necessity for them to go, to the Employment Exchange to sign on and ask if there is any chance of work and any job going. That is the spirit of the men whom I represent, at any rate. It has not been possible so far really to test the new Clauses put into the Unemployment Insurance Act. There have been no jobs to offer anybody. It has been quite impossible to judge whether a man is seeking work under the new formula or not, because there has been no work to send him to look for. Therefore, the unemployed in the vast majority of cases are not receiving more in amount or more in individual cases than they are justly entitled to from the legal point of view, and what is humane and reasonable.
What is actually happening to-day We are getting three great benefits from the expenditure of this money. There are tens of thousands of pounds going into shops in many towns in this country and giving employment by this expenditure through the working classes. No money is better spent in industry, and gives more employment than the money spent by the working classes in doing their ordinary weekly shopping. I believe the reason why we in this country appear to be standing the strain better than other countries is because of this system of unemployment insurance. Secondly, we are maintaining our people in a fit and healthy condition ready to deal with employment when it comes hack again, so that they can cope with it as strong and healthy men and women, and not as those who have been degraded and lowered by living at starvation level. Thirdly, the nation is maintaining itself in a calm and collected way, is steady, and not being led astray by difficulties which arise in other countries. From the point of view of national insurance, the whole policy is a wise one.
Another point that will come out when the matter is dealt with in the light of the report of the Insurance Commission, is the question of the two classes of men you get in the Employment Exchange. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has dealt with it in a moving way, and I put this point to him. There are now two classes, the statutory class, who are drawing benefit under the insurance scheme, and the transitional class. They are more or less working together, and there is no apparent difference between them when they draw benefit. I am one of those who think, seeing that we have this insurance scheme, that we should keep it as an insurance scheme, and place it on a proper insurance basis. It is suggested that it might be very humiliating and trying to segregate the men of the transitional group and put them in an entirely different category, but I do not admit that that need be the case at all. Under the present law, I quite agree that they would go to the public assistance committee, who are the persons carrying on the Poor Law, and under that system you would get the very thing which is feared by the hon. Member.
I think it is a point to be considered whether it might not be possible—supposing the State takes over, as I think it ought to do, the responsibility for the maintenance of the able-bodied unemployed-to devise machinery which would enable these men to be dealt with through the Employment Exchanges as they are now, so that there would be no real difference in dealing with them, and they would not be dealt with as a different and inferior class. I hope that when the Government do deal with this question, as they certainly will have to do, they will seriously consider maintaining the insured people, and making it a proper insurance fund, while giving to the other people, who will require maintenance, support which will come to them as far as possible through the same channels and in the same way, so that there shall not be any feeling of difference.
There is one other point on which I should like to say a word. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) said last night in very strong and violent language that he would do everything in his power in all the circumstances to prevent the return to the Treasury Bench of the Leader of this party. Yes, but that has not prevented the representatives of the Conservative party going to members of the Liberal Parliamentary party and endeavouring to persuade them to vote against the Government and to throw the Government out in order that they may come back.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I had not intended to intervene in this Debate, and possibly would not have done so but for the last speech. I should like the hon. Member, who knows something about insurance and whose speech was sincere, to apply his mind to it as much as he applies it to general politics and his own business. His last statement, I am sorry to say, appeared rather absurd. He said he wanted to see it on an insurance basis, and that those who were not on an insurance basis should be dealt with at the Employment Exchanges, but not through the Insurance Fund. Does he know what happens now?

Mr. MANDER: I do know.

Mr. BUCHANAN: What happens is that all the insurance people draw from the Insurance Fund, and those who are
not in insurance do not draw from the fund, but they all draw at the Exchange. That is what is happening, and he is asking for an alteration.

Mr. MANDER: The hon. Member has misunderstood me. At present it is working like that, but the suggestion is that, supposing transitional benefit comes to an end, and nobody is dealt with through the Employment Exchanges except those definitely insured, it will then be necessary to have all the transitional people dealt with through a different channel and to throw them on to the old Poor Law. I was putting forward a suggestion which might avoid that very undesirable thing.

Mr. BUCHANAN: You have no need to. They are doing it now. What you are asking is a continuation of the present system. I see the hon. Member for Newark (Marquess of Titchfield) has been out to find the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks) to make his contribution. I suggest to him that he will be well advised on matters so important to human welfare to search for a better recruit. The Blanesburgh Committee made certain recommendations for 30 stamps in two years as the insurance basis, and to be worked by certain regulations. This House has modified them in regard to genuinely seeking work, but the basis of the 30 stamps for insurance under the Act is not altered. The only thing which is altered is that the genuinely seeking work provision is abolished, and there is a slight increase in benefit, but no transitional person comes out of benefit. The present Government, I think, have gone much further than the Blanesburgh report in connection with the scheme. The Blanesburgh Committee recommended a carry-over period when the transitional period would be chargeable to the fund. Under the Government scheme the only people now chargeable to the Insurance Fund are people with an absolutely sound insurance basis. Therefore, the point is that the ordinary man on transitional benefit is met by State funds. The only thing is that he is not in any way segregated from his fellows or the rest of the unemployed.
The Government must recognise that we of this party will resist to the uttermost any attempt or manœuvre, any subterfuge, to separate the sections of the unfortunate unemployed, and I hope that
the Government, whatever they do, will not play with that idea. The right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) said that the unemployed did not want to have people who are not on an insurance basis associated with them. The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvin-grove (Major Elliot) like myself represents a large number of transitional period people. Has anyone asked the hon. and gallant Member by deputation to get these people shifted from the fund? Neither the trade unions who administer the fund and who have to deal with their members, nor any of the voluntary organisations connected with the fund are not in favour of segregating these people, they desire to keep the unemployed together in a fashion which will not allow any differentiation one from the other. It is said that we should discuss this matter in another three months. I do not object to discussing the question every day of the week. It is the only subject and the most important subject that can be discussed at the moment.
I am a Socialist and I believe, rightly or wrongly, in the class war on society, a war between the section of the community which exploits the community and those who are exploited. Under modern capitalism and the development of machinery, with modern education and the increase in man's productivity, whether you like it or not, there are only two things a Socialist Government can do, and that is to regulate hours, or provide for the unemployed. I do not care how often this subject is discussed because you are discussing the biggest and greatest social problem we have to face. There are 2,600,000 to-day who are signing the register and drawing benefit, and, in addition, you have others who are unemployed. You have the agricultural worker, who is outside the fund: the railway workers, three-quarters of the unemployed are outside the Act, domestic servants, who are outside the Act, and there is in addition, the most tragic feature of all, the small man with a little shop, who has struggled for years but who has been battered and killed by ruthless rationalisation. When I hear of so-called abuses, I ask what about the abuses on the other side, the man who is urged to go to Canada to search in the wilds for work. He goes, and
sends back money to keep his mother from being a charge on the Poor Law. He is out there for three years, and then is thrown out of work. He comes back here and for his spirit and his decency in keeping his mother, he cannot get unemployment benefit.
I was challenged about the Commission. It was said that they only sent out a questionnaire. I stand by every word I said, in spite of the Minister of Labour's statement last night. Why is it that in the whole series of questions sent out by this Commission that there is not one asking how to add a new unemployed man on to the fund, not one asking for cases of abuses which refuse a man benefit. Every one of the questions was directed in one way, and that is how to shift people off the fund. You can make whatever excuses you like but the bent of the mind of this Commission is there in that questionnaire issued to local authorities. There is also another tragic figure. I met a man last week who used to earn £6 a week. He has been working for 40 years, and is 58 years of age. Two years ago he bought a house, but now he cannot get unemployment benefit because he is outside the Act, a derelict. If you add those who are outside the Act, those who have gone abroad, domestic servants and so on, it is not 2,600,000 unemployed but nearly 3,000,000, and that number is turned over two or three times in a year. The Parliamentary Secretary says that it is turned over a little over two and a-half times in a year. If you add to that number their wives and mothers and their families you cover a population in a year of from 15,000,000 to 20,000,000 people, very nearly half the population. That is what we are discussing to-night, how to provide for nearly half our population.
I would say one thing about the Treasury Memorandum, and it is that this party was elected more than any other by the votes of the very poor, and it was put into office at the last election to see to the treatment of the unemployed. I think we have done so, and I want to do credit to those in office who have treated the unemployed more generously than past Governments. We were elected to do it, and we have done it much better than other Governments.
I say this to the Parliamentary Secretary: We are a Labour Government and a working-class Government, the foundations of which were built by Keir Hardie in the early days. The working class expects, when evidence is to be given, that that evidence, given on behalf of a working-class party, shall not be the same evidence as would be given if the Government were a Tory Government. Imagine the situation that we have. Two Treasury representatives, speaking on behalf of Chancellor of the Exchequer, attack the working class that voted us into office. The Tories would not have stood it if it had been a question of attacking the rentier or the landlord. We have the spectacle of a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer sending two officials to speak on his behalf and to give evidence against the people who have given us place and power. It is an outrage. Let me say this to the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). He dealt with the segregation of the unemployed. I hope we shall return to this subject on some future occasion. If the six months is granted, this is not the last discussion that we shall have. The Opposition can raise the question on the Vote for the Miniser's salary and abuses can be challenged then.

Major ELLIOT: But nothing that requires legislation.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The right hon. Gentleman opposite can always get a Debate. No Government could refuse them reasonable time for Debate. For my part I cannot see why there should be any worry about it. As to segregation, the right hon. Member for Spen Valley said that there was a feeling among the insured workers that large numbers who were not insured were coming on to the fund. I think that was what he said.

Sir J. SIMON: Not quite that. I pointed out the danger of the public confusing those who are insured on an actuarial basis with others whose relief is not so based.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The curious thing about all the so-called abuses is that, even in the memorandum that has been quoted, every one of them represents an insured contributor with a proper insurance basis—every one of them, the married women, the coal trimmers, the footballers—all on an insurance basis,
every one of them. The hon. Member for East Newcastle (Sir R. Aske) said he knew of platers and boilermakers who were 30 years in their last job and had been idle for five years. Those men have a very long insurance record. It could not be said that anyone would come to any harm if such people drew benefit. It could not be said that anyone would be contaminated because a man who had been 30 years a boilermaker drew benefit for two years. It could not be said that a man who had been two years working and had an insurance card was contaminated because a man with 10 years insurance record drew benefit alongside him. There was the ease mentioned of a woman in the Bridgeton Division who had been 36 years in work and had been idle for 2½ years.
Is the right hon. Member for Spen Valley, with his precise legal definitions, going to say that some young woman with an insurance record is degraded because she draws unemployment benefit beside the woman who has a record of 36 years work? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to state plainly what he means. Do not let him use language which no judge in the court would let him use—platitudes and loose talk about what is to be done, and loose statements about unemployed people. Hon. Members opposite do the same thing. When they are challenged to give names and to say where something has happened, one hears never a word. Governments may come and Governments may go, but there are 10,000,000, 15,000,000 and perhaps 20,000,000 people affected by unemployment in our country to-day, and Governments must face the problem.
The demand I make of the present Government is this: They have made pledges. They know that as well as I do. Some Members of the Government have made pledges that makes me pale pink compared with their deep red. The Secretary for Mines has made commitments and pledges that I would be afraid to make. Frankly I would not do it. I have read those pledges. I ask the Government to say to right hon. Gentlemen opposite, "When you attack the unemployed do you mean segregation? Do you mean different treatment for different men? Do you mean to have an inquiry into their means? Do you mean to apply the Poor Law test? Do you
mean a reduction in benefit? If so, state frankly to the unemployed what you mean." The right hon. Gentleman who leads the Opposition has stated to the farmers definitely and deliberately what he is going to give them from public money. The late Minister of Health told the rich ratepayers what he would give them in the way of money. Let the Government say to the poor in equally precise language what they intend to do with them. If anyone intends to attack the unemployed let it be done on the platforms.
Why this constant picking out of one or two cases? I am a Republican, and I make no apology for it. But it would be most improper for me to pick out one bad man who had been a monarch and to base my case for Republicanism on it. It would be wrong and it would be unfair. Hon. Members opposite have no more right to pick out one case of so-called abuse in order to slander the unemployed. I hope that the Government will show a stout front, remembering their duty to the poor and the working class, and remembering their own humble origin. When we are told about borrowing money, I remind hon. Members that for 4½ years we borrowed and we borrowed and we borrowed to fight the Germans. I ask the Government now to keep on borrowing in a far greater cause than that of smashing the Germans—the cause of providing for the comfort of the homes, for the well-being and uplifting of the common people of this country.

Mr. CAMPBELL: I think we all appreciated the speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). However mistaken we may consider his views, we recognise his sincerity, and that is a quality which the House of Commons appreciates. But he and many other hon. Members on the Government Benches are quite wrong in suggesting that our object in putting down these Amendments is to attack the unemployed. Our attack is solely against the Government. Only a few days ago we heard a very fine speech from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which he informed us that the state of the country's finances was such that the Government and all of us must do everything possible to prevent any extravagances Yet, scarcely has the right hon.
Gentleman made that speech, than we are asked to consent to the Government having a blank cheque, or at any rate having additional powers up to a limit of no less than £20,000,000.
The Government ought to remember the feeling in the country on this matter which is well known to those of us who visit our constituencies frequently. For my part, I live in my constituency and I had three meetings there yesterday, and at each meeting I was asked two questions. One was, "When are you going to fire out this Government?" The other was, "When are you going to stop these extravagances?" My reply to the first was that I was going to do so as soon as possible, and as regards the second, I said that I hope to be here to-night to help our party in doing what we could to prevent extravagances. It is the prerogative of this House to criticise finance, and it is the duty of an Opposition to oppose. Therefore we want as many opportunities as possible of discussing Resolutions of this kind, in order to impress our views on the Government and also in order to hear exactly what is happening. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said it would be very easy to raise this question again in six months, but I very much doubt it. My experience in the House of Commons is that it is very difficult to raise a subject of this kind unless it is brought up in a Financial Resolution by which we are asked to vote for a certain specified sum. But the effect of this Resolution is to deprive us of an opportunity of discussing this question again in another three months, when, obviously, the situation will have changed. It has been said that there are no abuses. Well, people in the country and many of us on both sides of the Committee are not quite sure whether that is true or not. But even supposing that there are no abuses, the sooner we hear that definitely the better, because at present the country is not at all satisfied on the point.
10.0 p.m.
As has been well said by more than one speaker to-night, it is not fair that the genuine insured unemployed should be looked upon as if they were receiving something to which they have no right. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary
to let us know whether the Government, if they come to the House of Commons again in the summer for another £10,000,000, or whatever the sum may be, will bring in a Bill beforehand to reorganise the scheme or whether we shall have to pay the £10,000,000 first. That is a very important point. We intend to-night to press our Amendment to a Division. It is, to our mind, a disgraceful thing that while we are being told by the Chancellor that it is essential to economise, and while we are doing our best to economise, we should hare to hand over without any further chance of seeing how it is to he expended, an extra sum of £20,000,000. For that reason I hope the Amendment will he carried.

Major ELLIOT: Again we are debating what is, as has been said in many quarters, the most important subject which could come before the House of Commons, even taking into consideration every subject which the House of Commons has to review. There are 2,500,000 unemployed, with a turnover which may bring the figure up to 5,000,000 people registered throughout the year, and, taking into account their families, I think it is no exaggeration to say, as the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said, that this question covers from 10,000,000 to 15,000,000 people. But far more than that, we have to consider that those of the great staple trades of this country, which are running on short time, are living by virtue of the subsidy which they receive through the Unemployment Insurance Fund.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Hear, hear!

Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member realises that fact and I think that if a premium were charged on those trades, to correspond with the risk which they run, many of them would find the greatest possible difficulty in carrying on. In itself, this Resolution is one of the most staggering Financial Resolutions which has ever come before the House of Commons. It covers borrowing powers for £1,000,000 a week. It covers Government expenditure on transitional benefit to the extent of £700,000 or £800,000 or possibly £900,000 a week. And this is the subject which the Government say the House of Commons should part with tonight for another six months! Every speech from the opposite side of the
Committee has reinforced the argument of the Amendment. The hon. Member for Gorbals himself has said, "I do not care; let this matter be debated again in three months." Unless this subject is brought back again and again, and yet again, to the notice of the House of Commons, it tends to pass into the background, and we tend to waste our time on pettifogging little Measures brought forward by the Government from one period to another, which do nothing to deal with the real state of affairs existing in the country at the present time.
On the general ground that this subject should be reviewed again in a lesser period than six months, I think there is no question whatever on any side of the House. But they say, "We will review it on the Minister's salary." You cannot discuss legislation on a Minister's salary, and legislation is the kernel of this problem. They say, "Put down a Vote of Censure." We know what these things turn into. The great guns are dragged laboriously into position, the heavy nowitzers are brought up, railways bring up great shells, and these are rammed into the breach and the shells soar into the sky perhaps 20 miles away, and there is little difference in the state of affairs. We have explanations of how the Prime Minister suffers, but still he thinks, on the whole, it will be better not to have a general election. When it comes to details, there is a chance of these things being considered and the attitude of the House being discovered, so that the Government may determine the four corners within which it may frame its plans and submit them to this Assembly.
A point was brought forward by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone) and by the hon. Member for Gorbals—but not, I may say, with such inaccuracy as it was brought forward by the hon. Member for Northampton. He repeated the statement that here we have accusations which were being made by civil servants against the unemployed, and he animadverted strongly against what he termed the action of those civil servants. I have taken the trouble to get the authority under which those two civil servants were speaking. They spoke by the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The facts which were given were vouched for with the weight
and responsibility of the second Minister of the Crown, and there is nothing he could say that has not been stated here in the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as his opinion and not the opinion of those civil servants. Now will the hon. Member for Northampton withdraw the accusation?

Mr. MALONE indicated dissent.

Major ELLIOT: I will read it to put it on record that we are dealing with the Minister and not with the civil servants. The hon. Member for Leicester East (Mr. Wise) asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the memorandum which was submitted by the Treasury to the Royal Commission on unemployment insurance. The Chancellor the Exchequer said in reply:
The Treasury Memorandum, which was submitted to me, was directed to matters of fact relevant to the Royal Commission's inquiry and the official witness intimated to the Commission that it was his function to confine himself to the facts and to their technical implications. As the hon. Member for East Leicester knows, public servants do not make pronouncements on Government policy, in regard to which I would refer him to the answer given by the Prime Minister yesterday to a question by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel).

Mr. LAMBERT: I do not quite gather whether this Memorandum was submitted to the right hon. Gentleman for approval or not.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I said so.

Mr. WISE: Are we to assume that, when the distinguished Treasury Official said that the debt charges were to be regarded as fixed, and that it was very essential to reduce the charges on the Treasury in respect of unemployment insurance, he was not expressing the policy of the Government?

Mr. SNOWDEN: He was, as I stated in reply to the question, confining himself to the facts and their technical implications.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Are we to understand that as a statement of the facts and of the position, the memorandum was submitted to the right hon. Gentleman and had his approval?

Mr. SNOWDEN: That is so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1931; Vol. 247, col. 1622.]
It is said, "Oh, these are merely Treasury officials; they are speaking out of their ignorance and not out of their knowledge." Let me repeat that these are quotations by the Treasury officials from the memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. MALONE: No.

Major ELLIOT: Let me read from the White Paper. The Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance, memorandum submitted by the Treasury, page 5, paragraph 8:
I am even more convinced that claims of certain other types which are now admitted are outside the financial provisions of this scheme. Examples of these are abundant in the Memoranda submitted by the Minister of Labour.

Mr. MALONE: Will the right hon. Gentleman read out of the evidence of the Ministry of Labour where there was a reference to coal trimmers and footballers.

Major ELLIOT: I am reading from the Minister's statement in the Debate at this Box. My hon. Friend cannot run away on that. The Minister of Labour took over a column of the OFFICIAL REPORT going into this very case of the footballers, and gave it under her authority and not under the authority of the Treasury official. That disposes of that Charge. This is a point of some interest since the Minister of Labour did me the honour to refer to a short passage in my own speech where I said that, she had considered and laid it down as absolute that the scheme should be self-supporting on a tripartite basis, and that it should provide outside the scheme for the able-bodied unemployed. The Minister, in her speech, pointed out that she had some objection to make to that, and she said that she not only said it at the time, but also in dealing with the Second Reading of the Bill. It is true that I was paraphrasing her remarks and that I understood her statement to be the statement, of the Government. It is true that the Minister in her speech said that the scheme should be a self-supporting scheme, that it should contain elements of a tripartite contribution, and that it should cover the able-bodied unemployed. My justification for saying that it was to provide for the able-bodied unemployed outside the scheme rests on the statements made by both the Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Let me quote the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he gave the terms of reference to the Royal Commission, which will be fresh in the memory of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). The terms of reference were the future
scope of the Unemployment Insurance Scheme:
the provisions which it should contain and the means by which it may be made solvent and self supporting; and the arrangements which should be made outside the scheme for the unemployed who are capable of and available for work."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 1st December, 1930; cols. 1785–6, Vol. 245.]
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour no longer ago than the 8th December said:
Nobody … assumes that the Unemployment Insurance scheme is to-day in a satisfactory condition. The piling up of debt cannot go on; the scheme must be put on a self-supporting basis. That is agreed. There is also agreement that able-bodied
unemployable—
workers who fail to qualify for insurance benefit must be provided for outside the existing arrangements."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1930; col. 65, Vol. 246.]
[Interruption.] I take it that the Minister meant "unemployed"—[Interruption.] I may be doing him an injustice, but certainly the terms of reference—[Interruption.] It is very important to get this clear. The important thing is that we have the terms of reference to the Royal Commission, which nobody will challenge, and the important point which we wish to clear up is what is meant by the Minister when she says that the scheme is to cover the "unemployed." Does this mean that there has been some change of policy since the terms of reference to the Royal Commission were laid down and announced in the House as to the arrangements which should be made outside the scheme for the unemployed who are capable of and available for work.

Mr. STEPHEN: I think the hon. and gallant Member will agree that it is important we should be clear as to whether the word used was "unemployable" or "unemployed," because a great deal in connection with carrying this matter out depends upon that distinction, and so much of his argument would fall if the word were "unemployable."

Major ELLIOT: I agree, but the whole question is governed by the word "able-bodied," and I cannot conceive of able-bodied unemployable workers. I take it that "unemployable" was a misprint for "unemployed," and that the phrase of the Minister was really "able-bodied unemployed workers," because able-
bodied unemployable workers is either a contradiction in terms, or is a phrase that would be regarded in many quarters of the House as something approaching a slander on the unemployed. Therefore, I take it that the Minister's statement stands or falls on the statement of the Prime Minister, and not on a mere phrase of a speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT. When the Minister picked me up on that point, I did not wish in any way to misrepresent her. I certainly thought that I was paraphrasing the sentence giving the gist of the policy as it had been laid down, if not as the policy of the Government, at least as a desirable policy, and the difficulties before the Commission, if it is about to report on a basis which is different from the basis which is now adopted by the Minister, will be enormously accentuated, and our demand for a short term for this Vote so that the matter may be reviewed at the earliest possible moment will be enormously strengthened.
The huge economic problem before us certainly ought to be reviewed at a shorter interval than six months. The problem before the Germans has shaken that country to its very foundations. [Interruption.] It has caused the fall of Government after Government there, and is the subject of acute discussion in that country. [Interruption.] Well, Germany is subject to Coalition Governments of one kind or another, and whether the Socialists are in or out of the Government is a matter which you have to look in the morning paper to determine. That country, with a wide democratic franchise and with an enormous unemployment problem, has frequently taken most drastic steps to deal with the unemployment situation, and has raised contributions until they run to 3s. 3d. per employed person, as against our own 1s. 6d. in its efforts to make its fund solvent. [Interruption.] At least in many of the insured trades in Germany they pay as high a contribution as 3s. 3d. per week.

Mr. McSHANE: May I point out that only last night one of the returns dealing with the German unemployed situation showed that there is specific State relief given to more than one million people as distinct from those under insurance.

Major ELLIOT: That makes it all the more important that this Debate should continue and that these points should be brought out. That touches on the question brought forward by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). There is a great industrial country with this specific relief quite apart from and outside all the insurance schemes. These are all arguments for a continuing review of the question. It ought not to be left for six months to be discussed in columns of evidence before the Royal Commission. This is the place where these things should be discussed; it is on the Floor of the House where these things can be discovered and brought out, and where they will be available for the common stock of ideas which we shall all have to draw upon if we are to solve this tremendous question.
The Minister brought out several very important points as to the absorption of the unemployed. There is the question whether the orthodox canons of economics operate any longer in the situation in which we stand. It is our contention that the old-fashioned classical economics do not apply any longer and that our whole conception as to the benefits which were found by a vast increase of imports and by a vast increase of manufacturing power fall when we have to consider this enormous burden of maintenance, this effort to maintain the people who theoretically would be immediately available for fresh production. Let me take, as an example, the figures given by the Government Actuary before the Royal Commission when dealing with some of the great staple trades of this country. In the iron and steel trade, in the four financial years after the General Strike—not bringing in its figures at all—the contributions by employers and employed persons came on an average to £475,000 a year. Benefit and administration costs amounted to £1,688,000. That is to say, £1,213,000 a year from general funds was being paid into this trade.
This was at a time when the blast furnaces were off all over the country. A classic economist would say that this great quantity of raw material, brought in chiefly from abroad, is available for shipbuilding and ship repairs, and for the great engineering trades, and that that will tend to benefit those who are thrown out of work by this inrush of free
imports into this country, and that, although men may be displaced from the manufacture of iron and steel, they will be taken up by the use of iron and steel. Look at the general engineering trade during the last four years. Those trades paid in £1,680,000 a year, and they paid out £2,576,000. That trade was kept going by subventions from the general funds of this country. The shipbuilding and the ship-repairing trade paid in £465,000, and paid out in benefit and administration for those four years £2,331,000, showing a deficit of £1,866,000.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The right hon. Gentleman is quoting figures relating to the staple trades, but that does not dispose of the argument.

Major ELLIOT: We are discussing two Amendments in one. I wish to point out that we are not merely dealing with the abuses, but with what seems to be the much larger question of transitional benefit which is mounting up to something like £35,000,000 or £40,000,000 a year. The hon. Member for Gorbals says: "State your remedy. What would you do?" The Chairman has already explained that he would immediately stop me if I attempted to do anything of the kind.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Do it on the platform.

Major ELLIOT: I tried to do it at the three-party conference, and I was immediately told that my contributions were of no value whatsoever. I will reserve my poor advice for a more appreciative audience. I am not merely dealing with the question of abuses, whether there is to be a one-in-six or 30 contributions ratio, or whether some limitation is to be put on it or not. Personally, I think that the theory of unlimited liability in insurance has broken down altogether. You must have a limited liability in insurance and a wider scheme which will deal with the situation as we find it. I beg the Committee to remember that the whole question of transitional benefit means that a subvention in aid of the trades of this country is being paid out of the general taxes, on the suggestion that it is an insurance payment. That is an entire fallacy, and it is admitted to be such by everyone. [Interruption.]
Let me try to get with me the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton),
because I leave out of account the Treasury Bench entirely in this argument. The Treasury Bench has admitted that it can think of nothing, and must have ideas brought up to it in pap form by a Royal Commission—pre-digested food. It is like a pelican in the wilderness, the type of eternal love and charity. That is the motto for this Government—a Royal Commission feeding with the blood from its own breast a row of little squawking nestlings sitting on the Treasury Bench. I am trying to get the constructive thought of hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, because it seems to me that it is to them that the Government will have to bow when they bring in their legislation, and, unless we can convince them in advance, we have a very poor chance of seeing any legislation placed on the Statute Book at all. I ask them to agree that here we are faced with a real need for a reconstitution of the economic fabric of this country. These huge sums, nominally insurance payments, are now something entirely outside and beyond insurance payments.

Mr. MAXTON: While they are not insurance in the limited sense of unemployment insurance, they are a very important insurance for the general stability of the nation.

Major ELLIOT: That is not what I am discussing. It is quite true that they are an insurance for the stability of this country, but they represent a slogan against which my hon. Friend declaimed most bitterly—the slogan of "Safety First." It is the slogan of the frozen mass of labour: "Come up and we will give you your breakfast." "Come up and we will give you a week's wages." That may be all very well as an emergency measure for a year or for two years, but is it going to be the policy for 20 years?

Mr. MAXTON: There will be a crash before then.

Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member underestimates the enormous strength of the capitalist system. He knows very well that the productive power of the capitalist system is quite equal to keeping even an army of 2,000,000 unemployed for five, 10, or even 20 years—

Mr. MAXTON: Then what is all the excitement about?

Major ELLIOT: When we find ourselves faced with a large part of the nation on the dole, the hon. Member knows as well as I do that the difficulty is not merely that of abuses. The difficulty that bears most bitterly upon all of us is that of the decent man who, when we go home to our constituencies, comes to us and says, "For God's sake get me a job." What is the use of paying that man to stay in a ship-repairing yard on the theory that some day or other a boat will come in to be repaired? What is the use of paying a man to stay in a steelworks on the theory that some day or other the price of steel will alter and he will get a job in his own trade as a steelworker? What is the use, of keeping a man in the cotton trade, which has gone on chronic short time, on the theory that some day or other all the mills in Japan will stop, that the heart of Mr. Gandhi will change, that the Americans will make no more cotton, and that every spindle in Lancashire will be working again? [Interruption.] Into the question of the utility of keeping a system which does that, I am not going to enter. I am not going to enter now into the whole question of "Socialism in our time." All I can say is that under this system these people are at least getting their breakfasts, they are getting their dinners, and they are getting their teas, while under the Socialist system in Russia they are being sent into the timber camps—[Interruption].
No one pretends that the present system is perfect. What we have to deal with is the question of what steps shall be taken to improve the present system? On all these points we say that six months is a ridiculous time for the House to dismiss this question from its attention and its cognisance. The very fact that we can raise these acute divisions of opinion so easily and quickly in this House shows that this is a time when this question should be discussed. People in the country are widely interested in every decision of this House. These are the questions that we ought to be discussing and not barren questions about electoral reform or whether it is legal or illegal for 500 men to go on strike. What does the liberty to strike matter when there are 2,800,000 men who are condemned to a perpetual strike? These are the difficulties that the Government are shirking. The Government
are shirking their executive duties. They also have the duty of the leadership of the nation and the House of Commons in the discussion of these great questions. The whole economic system is being transformed by this system of State subsidy to certain trades, and the whole economic fabric of the country is warped by the pretence—for it is nothing more—that these people will be reemployed in these trades from which employment has passed, and perhaps passed for ever, certainly passed for a length of time much greater than makes it justifiable to keep people in idleness outside the factory doors, waiting for them to open. That is the accusation that we bring. These are the subjects which we wish discussed. To say, "Go away and leave us and come back in six months, and perhaps we shall have found a solution to all these great questions," is to place on the Royal Commission a burden and a compliment for both of which it is unfitted and to place on the House of Commons a degradation which even under its present leadership it has never yet merited.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): This Debate has now gone on for something over 2 hours. The Minister has already replied, and I only wish to ask the House, in view of the business that is to follow, to bring the matter to a decision as early as possible. I have listened with interest to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech. He analysed the unemployment question with that fertility of mind which is characteristic of him, but he is really very unfortunate in the illustrations that he uses. I remember the other night he told us that at the beginning of last century, when Parliament and the country were in a similar position, our independent-minded ancestors decided at once without any Commission.

Major ELLIOT: No, I said they decided. I doubt whether this Government ever will decide, even if they do get the Commission's report.

Mr. LAWSON: That Parliament decided after a very famous Commission had sat for some length of time. Then he said the squawking nestlings on the Treasury Bench had to be fed. The Blanesburgh Committee sat for nearly
two years, and the late Government waited on that Committee before they legislated in 1927. At least the Government is not asking a Commission to sit for two years. We have been told unceasingly in these Debates that Parliament is allowing this matter to pass out of its hands for six months. The whole history of the matter is that previous Governments have asked and obtained borrowing powers for 12 months.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman used the illustration of the position of Germany, and how they are facing their position. The same sort of thing is happening in Germany that is happening in this country. An important commission has beet set up to investigate the whole financial situation and to make representations to Parliament, and they are awaiting the decision of that commission. The same sort of speech has been made to-day as has been made continually during these Debates. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) referred to the lamentable and terrible facts. I do not think that there is a Member in any part of this House who has not had brought vividly before him—to say nothing of having to deal with some of them—the terrible position of the great mass of the people arising from this situation. If it was possible to make a definite contribution, I do not think that anyone would regret sitting here almost continuously if such a contribution could be made for the well-being of the people. The Government are asking for the Committee stage of this Bill, and I understand that an arrangement has been made that a Division should be taken after a general Debate on the matter. I would ask the Committee to consider the wisdom of now coming to a decision on this particular matter, in view of the fact that other important matters have to be discussed to-night, instead of dragging this thing on indefinitely. This matter has been discussed and re-discussed on several days this week, and there will be yet a further opportunity of discussing it.

Mr. BRACKEN: I should not have intervened in this Debate but for the character of the speeches of the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that the Government were prepared to sit here
almost continuously if they could solve unemployment. He also said that there was very little use in continuing a discussion such as this. After all, I suppose it does not much matter if we spend the £20,000,000, because we discussed this matter for two hours and a half this afternoon. The Minister of Labour in a most bitter and truculent fashion rebuked the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) for making one of the most moderate and reasonable speeches one could imagine, stressing the necessity for this House to guard the public purse. The Minister rebuked him, and told him that his speech had much better be made from the Conservative benches. What on earth has that to do with the economic arguments? Why does the Minister of Labour come down here with these petty points like a finishing governess in a temper to rebuke the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley who was definitely pointing out to the Committee that it is our bounden duty to guard against these inroads upon the public purse. I see that the Secretary of State for War is laughing, with hilarity which is unworthy of his office. We have here a typical instance of the actions of the present Government. They care nothing whether £20.000,000, £40,000,000 or £100,000,000 go. They send here the Parliamentary Secretary who, from a long reign of petticoat government, comes to the House altogether debilitated to deal with the most serious duties of his office. He tells us that it is in order, because the late Conservative Government postponed this matter—a statement which is not very well-founded—that we should postpone the matter for six months, and pay no further attention either to the problem of unemployment or to the vast sums which the Government are wasting in doles. [HON. MEMBERS: "Wasting?"] I was quoting a well known phrase from the Leader of the Liberal party. It seems to me an extraordinary thing that the Government should be content to ask for six months delay. In that space of time they will say: "We will do nothing, but we will hope that the Royal Commission will come along and justify us."
The Government in the meantime will go on spending large sums of public money, and no one will know what the Government policy is for dealing with unemployment or whether they really in-
tend to implement the report of the Royal Commission. It is disgraceful—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad that Members of the Labour party think that it is disgraceful, because their pledges at the General Election do not seem to have weighed much with them. It is disgraceful that we should vote this vast sum of public money and that the Parliamentary Secretary should come here and say that it does not much matter. I hope the Members of the Conservative party, which contains such a vast array of economic experts, will continue the Debate. Meanwhile, I regret to say that the great Liberal party, the party of retrenchment and reform, are represented by a mere handful of Members, who seem to care nothing that so much public money is being wasted. Their unholy bargain with the Government apparently compels their leaders to stay away, while such Members as are here are content with a shameful silence.
When I was speaking the other night I wanted to tell a story. The great Duke of Wellington was once asked what was the worst speech he ever heard. That was before the Labour party came

into being. After a great deal of consideration, he said that the worst speech he ever heard was a speech by a Portuguese general to his troops, before going into action. The general said: "Gentlemen, remember that you are Portuguese." Look at the spectacle on these benches to-night. Here am I, a humble Conservative Member, having to sit on the Liberal benches to plead the cause of economy. I do hope that hon. Members on the benches above the Gangway will continue the Debate in order that we may persuade the public that we do care about the voting away of £20,000,000 of public money at the behest of the Parliamentary Secretary who, apparently, regards the public purse as being of illimitable depth, and at the behest of the Minister of Labour, whose partisan speeches are unworthy of her office, and have had such an effect on the House that hon. Members wish that she would transfer her office to someone who would discharge its elementary duties.

Question put, "That the word 'ninety' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes. 246 Noes, 142.

Division No. 157.]
AYES.
[10.51 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Church, Major A. G.
Hardie, George D.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Clarke, J. S.
Harris, Percy A.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Cluse, W. S.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie, M.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Angell, Sir Norman
Cowan, D. M.
Haycock, A. W.


Arnott, John
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hayday, Arthur


Aske, Sir Robert
Daggar, George
Hayes, John Henry


Attlee, Clement Richard
Dalton, Hugh
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)


Ayles, Walter
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Henderson, Arthur, June (Cardiff, S.)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Dudgeon, Major C. R
Henderson, W. W. (Middx, Enfield)


Baidwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Duncan, Charles
Herriotts, J.


Barnes, Alfred John
Ede, James Chuter
Hoffman, P. C.


Barr, James
Edmunds, J. E.
Hopkin, Daniel


Batey, Joseph
Egan, W. H.
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Elmley, Viscount
Horrabin, J. F.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Foot, Isaac
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Benson, G.
Freeman, Peter
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Isaacs, George


Birkett, W. Norman
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Jenkins, Sir William


Blindell, James
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)


Bowen, J. W.
Gill, T. H.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gillett, George M.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Glassey, A. E.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Brooke, W.
Gossling, A. G.
Jowitt, Sir W, A. (Preston)


Brothers, M.
Gould, F.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Kelly, W. T.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Granville, E.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Buchanan, G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Burgess, F. G.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Kinley, J.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Kirkwood, D.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R, Eiland)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Knight, Holford


Calne, Derwent Hall-
Groves, Thomas E.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Cameron, A. G.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lathan, G.


Carter, W, (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Law, A. (Rossendale)


Charieton, H. C.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Lawrence, Susan


Chater, Daniel
Harbord, A.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Lawson, John James
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Leach, W.
Palin, John Henry
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Lea, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Paling, Wilfrid
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Palmer, E. T.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Lees, J.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Perry, S. F.
Sorensen, R.


Lindley, Fred W.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Stamford, Thomas W.


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Stephen, Campbell


Longbottom, A. W.
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Longden, F.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Strauss, G. R.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Pole, Major D. G.
Sullivan, J.


Lunn, William
Potts, John S.
Sutton, J. E.


Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Price, M. P.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


MacDonald, Malcolm (Battetlaw)
Pybus, Percy John
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


McElwee, A.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


McEntee, V. L.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Thurtle, Ernest


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Raynes, W. R.
Tillett, Ben


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Richards, R.
Tinker, John Joseph


McShane, John James
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Toole, Joseph


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Ritson, J.
Tout, W. J.


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Romeril, H. G.
Townend, A. E.


Mansfield, W.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Vaughan, David


March, S.
Rowson, Guy
Viant, S. P.


Marcus, M.
Russell, Richard John (Eddlsbury)
Walkden, A. G.


Markham, S. F.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Walker, J.


Marley, J.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Wallace, H. W.


Marshall, Fred
Sanders, W. S.
Watkins, F. C.


Mathers, George
Sandham, E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Matters, L. W.
Sawyer, G. F.
Wellock, Wilfred


Maxton, James
Scrymgeour, E.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Melville, Sir James
Scurr, John
West, F. R.


Mester, Fred
Sexton, Sir James
Westwood, Joseph


Middleton, G.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Mills, J. E.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Montague, Frederick
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Sherwood, G. H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Morley, Ralph
Shield, George William
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Mort, D. L.
Shillaker, J. F.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Shinwell, E.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Muggeridge, H. T.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wise, E. F.


Murnin, Hugh
Simmons, C. J.
Wood, Major McKenzle (Banff)


Naylor, T. E.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)



Newman, Sir R H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sitch, Charles H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Thomas Henderson.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hanbury, C.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Albery, Irving James
Cranborne, Viscount
Hartington, Marquess of


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Haslam, Henry C.


Atholl Duchess of
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Atkinson, C.
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I.of Thanet)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Balniel, Lord
Dawson, Sir Philip
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Dixey, A. C.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Beaumont M. W.
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Little, Sir Ernest Graham-


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lockwood, Captain J. H.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Boyce, Leslie
Ferguson, Sir John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Bracken, B.
Fielden, E. B.
Marjoribanks, Edward


Briscoe, Richard George
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Ford, Sir P. J.
Millar, J. D.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Butler, R. A.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Ganzoni, Sir John
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Campbell, E. T.
Gower, Sir Robert
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Carver, Major W. H.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
O'Connor, T. J.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
O'Neill, Sir H.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Remer, John R.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hammersley, S. S.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James




Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Wells, Sydney R.


Salmon, Major I.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Withers, Sir John James


Savery, S. S.
Thomson, Sir F.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Simms, Major-General J.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Womersley, W. J.


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Todd, Capt. A. J.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement



Skelton, A. N.
Turton, Robert Hugh
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Captain Margesson and Sir George


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
 Penny.


Smithers, Waldron
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes. 244 Noes, 138.

CLAUSE 2.—(Further amendment of s. 14 (2) of 17 and 18 Geo. 5 c. 30.)

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I beg to move, in page 2., line 2, to leave out the word "forty-two" and to insert instead thereof the word "thirty-nine."

Question put, "That the word 'forty-two' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 130.

Division No. 158.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Granville, E.
McEntee, V. L.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
McShane, John James


Arnott, John
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Aske, Sir Robert
Groves, Thomas E.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mansfield, W.


Ayles, Walter
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
March, S.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilstan)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Marcus, M.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Harbord, A.
Markham, S. F.


Barnes, Alfred John
Hardle, George D.
Marley, J.


Barr, James
Harris, Percy A.
Marshall, F.


Batey, Joseph
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Mathers, George


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Matters, L. W.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Haycock, A. W.
Maxton, James


Benson, G.
Hayday, Arthur
Melville, Sir James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hayes, John Henry
Messer, Fred


Birkett, W. Norman
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Middleton, G.


Blindell, James
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Mills, J. E.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Montague, Frederick


Bowen, J. W.
Herriotts, J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hoffman, P. C.
Morley, Ralph


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hopkin, Daniel
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Brooke, W.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Mort, D. L.


Brothers, M.
Horrabin, J. F.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfleld)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Muggeridge, H. T.


Buchanan, G.
Isaacs, George
Murnin, Hugh


Burgess, F. G.
Jenkins, Sir William
Naylor, T. E.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Cameron, A. G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Charleton, H. C.
Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)
Palin, John Henry.


Chater, Daniel
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Paling, Wilfrid


Church, Major A. G.
Kelly, W. T.
Palmer, E. T.


Clarke, J. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Cluse, W. S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Perry, S. F.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Kinley, J.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Cowan, D. M.
Kirkwood, D.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Daggar, George
Lathan, G.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Dalton, Hugh
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Pole, Major D. G.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lawrence, Susan
Potts, John S.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Price, M. P.


Duncan, Charles
Lawson, John James
Pybus, Percy John


Ede, James Chuter
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Edmunds, J. E.
Leach, W.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Egan, W. H.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Raynes, W. R.


Elmley, Viscount
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Richards, R.


Foot, Isaac
Lees, J.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Freeman, Peter
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Ritson, J.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lindley, Fred W.
Romeril, H. G.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Longbottom, A. W.
Rowson, Guy


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Longden, F.
Russell, Richard John (Eddlsbury)


Gill, T. H.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Gillett, George M.
Lunn, William
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Glassey, A. E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sanders, W. S.


Gossling, A. G.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sandham, E.


Gould, F.
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Sawyer, G. F.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McElwee, A.
Scrymgeour, E.


Scurr, John
Stamford, Thomas W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Sexton, Sir James
Stephen, Campbell
Wellock, Wilfred


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Strachey, E. J. St. Lee
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Strauss, G. R.
West, F. R.


Sherwood, G. H.
Sullivan, J.
Westwood, Joseph


Shield, George William
Sutton, J. E.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Shillaker, J. F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Simmons, C. J.
Tillett, Ben
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Sinclair, sir A. (Caithness)
Tinker, John Joseph
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Sitch, Charles H
Toole, Joseph
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Tout, W. J.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Townend, A. E.
Wise, E. F.


Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Vaughan, David
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Viant, S. P.



Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Walkden, A. G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Walker, J.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Wallace, H. W.
 Thomas Henderson.


Sorensen, R.
Watkins, F. C.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Duckworth, G. A. V.
O'Connor, T. J.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Eden, Captain Anthony
O'Neill, Sir H.


Albery, Irving James
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Remer, John R.


Atholl, Duchess of
Everard, W. Lindsay
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Atkinson, C.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Ferguson, Sir John
Ross, Ronald D.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fermoy, Lord
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Fielden, E. B.
Salmon, Major I.


Balniel, Lord
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Beaumont M. W.
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Savery, S. S.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Simms, Major-General J.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Ganzoni, Sir John
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bird, Ernest Roy
Gower, Sir Robert
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Skelton, A. N.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Boyce, Leslie
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Bracken, B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Smithers, Waldron


Briscoe, Richard George
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hammersley, S. S.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hanbury, C.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Butler, R. A.
Hartington, Marquess of
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Butt, Sir Alfred
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Campbell, E. T.
Haslam, Henry C.
Thomson, Sir F.


Carver, Major W. H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Kindersley, Major G. M
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Colfox, Major William Philip
Leiqhton, Major B. E. P.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Colman, N. C. D.
Little, Sir Ernest Graham-
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Wells, Sydney R.


Cranborne, Viscount
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Marjoribanks, Edward
Withers, Sir John James


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Womersley, W. J.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)



Dawson, Sir Philip
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Dixey, A. C.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Captain Margesson and Sir George




Penny.

Division No. 159.]
AYES.
[11.13 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Herriotts, J.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Hoffman, P. C.
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Hopkin, Daniel
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Pole, Major D. G.


Arnott, John
Horrabin, J. F.
Potts, John S


Asks, Sir Robert
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Price, M. P.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Pybus, Percy John


Ayles, Walter
Jenkins, Sir William
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Johnston, Thomas
Raynes, W. R.


Barnes, Alfred John
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Richards, R.


Barr, James
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Batey, Joseph
Jones, Morgan (Caerphllly)
Ritson, J.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Romeril, H. G.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Jowitt Sir W. A. (Preston)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Benson, G.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Rowson, Guy


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Kelly, W. T.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Birkett, W. Norman
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Blindell, James
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Kinley, J.
Sanders, W. S.


Bowen, J. W.
Kirkwood, D.
Sandham, E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Sawyer, G. F.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Lathan, G.
Scrymgeour, E.


Brooke, W.
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Scurr, John


Brothers, M.
Lawrence, Susan
Sexton, Sir James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Lawrle, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Lawson, John James
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Buchanan, G.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Sherwood, G. H.


Burgess, F. G.
Leach, W.
Shield, George William


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Shillaker, J. F.


Cameron, A. G.
Lees, J.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Simmons, C. J.


Charleton, H. C.
Llndley, Fred W.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Church, Major A. G.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sitch, Charles H.


Clarke, J. S.
Longbottom, A. W.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Cluse, W. S.
Longden, F.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Smith, H. B. Less- (Keighley)


Cowan, D. M.
Lunn, William
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Dagger, George
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Dalton, Hugh
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McElwee, A.
Sorensen, R.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
McEntee, V. L.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Duncan, Charles
McKinlay, A.
Stephen, Campbell


Ede, James Chuter
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Strachey, E. J. St. Lee


Edmunds, J. E.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Strauss, G. R.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
McShane, John James
Sullivan, J.


Egan, W. H.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sutton, J. E.


Elmley, Viscount
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Foot, Isaac
Mansfield, W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Freeman, Peter
Marcus, M.
Tillett, Ben


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Markham, S. F.
Tinker, John Joseph


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Marley, J.
Toole, Joseph


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Marshall, Fred
Tout, W. J.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Mathers, George
Townend, A. E.


Gill, T. H.
Matters, L. W.
Vaughan, David


Gillett, George M.
Maxton, James
Viant, S. P.


Glassey, A. E.
Melville, Sir James
Walkden, A. G.


Gossling, A. G.
Messer, Fred
Walker, J.


Gould, F.
Middleton, G.
Wallace, H. W.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mills, J. E.
Watkins, F. C.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Montague, Frederick
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Granville, E.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Wellock, Wilfred


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Morley, Ralph
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
West, F. R.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Mort, D. L.
Westwood, Joseph


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Groves, Thomas E.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Murnin, Hugh
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Harbord, A.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Hardie, George D.
Noel Baker, P. J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Harris, Percy A.
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Hastings, Dr. Somervlile
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Wise, E. F.


Haycock, A. W.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Hayday, Arthur
Palin, John Henry



Hayes, John Henry
Paling, Wilfrid
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Palmer, E. T.
Mr. Parkinson and Mr. Thomas


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Perry, S. F.
 Henderson.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Duckworth, G. A. V.
O'Neill, Sir H.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Eden, Captain Anthony
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Albery, Irving James
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Penny, Sir George


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Remer, John R.


Atholl, Duchess of
Everard, W. Lindsay
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Atkinson, C.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Ferguson, Sir John
Ross, Ronald D.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fermoy, Lord
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Balniel, Lord
Fielden, E. B.
Salmon, Major I.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Beaumont, M. W.
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Savery, S. S.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gower, Sir Robert
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Skelton, A. N.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Boyce, Leslie
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Smithers, Waldron


Bracken, B.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Briscoe, Richard George
Hammersley, S. S.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hanbury, C.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hartington, Marquess of
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Butler, R. A.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Haslam, Henry C.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Campbell, E. T.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Kindersley, Major G, M.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Colman, N. C. D.
Little, Sir Ernest Graham-
Warrender, Sir Victor


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Wells, Sydney R.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Cranborne, Viscount
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Marjoribanks, Edward
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Womersley, W. J.


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.



Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain


Dawson, Sir Philip
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Margesson.


Dixey, A. C.
O'Connor, T. J.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 126.

Division No. 160.]
AYES.
[11.22 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Gould, F.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Calne, Derwent Hall-
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Cameron, A. G.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Granville, E.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Charleton, H. C.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)


Arnott, John
Church, Major A. G.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Aske, Sir Robert
Clarke, J. S.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cluse, W. S.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Ayles, Walter
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Groves, Thomas E.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Cowan, D. M.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Barnes, Alfred John
Daggar, George
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)


Barr, James
Dalton, Hugh
Harbord, A.


Batey, Joseph
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hardie, George D.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Harris, Percy A.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Duncan, Charles
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Benson, G.
Ede, James Chuter
Haycock, A. W.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Edmunds, J. E.
Hayday, Arthur


Birkett, W. Norman
Egan, W. H.
Hayes, John Henry


Blindell, James
Elmley, Viscount
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Foot, Isaac
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)


Bowen, J. W.
Freeman, Peter
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Broad, Francis Alfred
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Herriotts, J.


Brooke, W.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Hoffman, P. C.


Brothers, M.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Hopkin, Daniel


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Gill, T. H.
Hore-Bellsha, Leslle


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Gillett, George M.
Horrabin, J. F.


Buchanan, G.
Glassey, A. E.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Burgess, F. G.
Gossling, A. G.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Jenkins, Sir William
Middleton, G.
Shillaker, J. F.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Mills, J. E.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Johnston, Thomas
Montague, Frederick
Simmons, C. J.


Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Morley, Ralph
Sitch, Charles H


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)
Mort, D. L.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Kelly, W. T.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Muggeridge, H. T.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Murnin, Hugh
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Kinley, J.
Naylor, T. E.
Sorensen, R.


Kirkwood, D.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Noel Baker, P. J.
Stephen, Campbell


Lathan, G.
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Strachey, E. J. St. Lee


Law, A. (Rossendale)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Strauss, G. R.


Lawrence, Susan
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Sullivan, J.


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Palin, John Henry
Sutton, J. E.


Lawson, John James
Paling, Wilfrid
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Palmer, E. T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Leach, W.
Perry, S. F.
Tillett, Ben


Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Tinker, John Joseph


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Toole, Joseph


Lees, J.
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Tout, W. J.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Townend, A. E.


Lindley, Fred W.
Pole, Major D. G.
Vaughan, David


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Potts, John S.
Viant, S. P.


Longbottom, A. W.
Price, M. P.
Walkden, A. G.


Longden, F.
Pybus, Percy John
Walker, J.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Wallace, H. W.


Lunn, William
Rathbone, Eleanor
Watkins, F. C.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Raynes, W. R.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Richards, R.
Wellock, Wilfred


McElwee, A.
Richardson, R. (Heughton-le-Spring)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


McEntee, V. L.
Ritson, J.
West, F. R.


McKinlay, A.
Romeril, H. G.
Westwood, Joseph


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


MacNeill-Weir. L.
Rowson, Guy
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


McShane, John James
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Mansfield, W.
Sanders, W. S.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Marcus, M.
Sandham, E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Markham, S. F.
Sawyer, G. F.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Marley, J.
Scrymgeour, E.
Wise, E. F.


Marshall, F.
Scurr, John
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Mathers, George
Sexton, Sir James



Matters, L. W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Maxton, James
Sherwood, G. H.
Mr. Parkinson and Mr. Charles


Melville, Sir James
Shield, George William
Edwards.


Messer, Fred
Shiels, Dr. Drummond



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Colfox, Major William Philip
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Colman, N. C. D.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Albery, Irving James
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cranborne, Viscount
Hammersley, S. S.


Atholl, Duchess of
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Hanbury, C.


Atkinson, C.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hartington, Marquess of


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Balniel, Lord
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Haslam, Henry C.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Beaumont, M. W.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Dixey, A. C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke Naw'gton)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Eden, Captain Anthony
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Little, Sir Ernest Graham-


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.M.)
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Boyce, Leslie
Everard, W. Lindsay
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Bracken, B.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Briscoe, Richard George
Ferguson, Sir John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Fermoy, Lord
Marjoribanks, Edward


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Fielden, E. B.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Butler, R. A.
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Campbell, E. T.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Carver, Major W. H.
Gower, Sir Robert
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
O'Connor, T. J.




O'Neill, Sir H.
Skelton, A. N.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Penny, Sir George
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Smithers, Waldron
Warrender, Sir Victor


Remer, John R.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wells, Sydney R.


Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Salmon, Major I.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Womersley, W. J.


Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Todd, Capt. A. J.



Savery, S. S.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)
Turton, Robert Hugh
Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain




Margesson.

Clause 3 (Short title, extent and repeal,) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report the Bill, without Amendment, to the House."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 234; Noes, 120.

Division No. 161.]
AYES.
[11.32 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Gould, F.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Granville, E.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
McElwee, A.


Arnott, John
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
McEntee, V. L.


Aske, Sir Robert
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'W.)
McKinlay, A.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Ayles, Walter
Groves, Thomas E.
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
McShane, John James


Barnes, Alfred John
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Barr, James
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Batey, Joseph
Harbord, A.
Mansfield, W.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hardle, George D.
Marcus, M.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Harris, Percy A.
Markham, S. F.


Benson, G.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Marley, J.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Haycock, A. W.
Marshall, Fred


Blindell, James
Hayday, Arthur
Mathers, George


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hayes, John Henry
Matters, L. W.


Bowen, J. W.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Maxton, James


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Melville, Sir James


Broad, Francis Alfred
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Messer, Fred


Brooke, W.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Middleton, G.


Brothers, M.
Herriotts, J.
Mills, J. E.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hoffman, P. C.
Montague, Frederick


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Hopkin, Daniel
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Buchanan, G.
Horrabin, J. F.
Morley, Ralph


Burgess, F. G.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Calne, Derwent Hall-
Jenkins, Sir William
Mort, D. L.


Cameron, A. G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Johnston, Thomas
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Church, Major A. G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Murnin, Hugh


Clarke, J. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Naylor, T. E.


Cluse, W. S.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Cowan, D. M.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kelly, W. T.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Daggar, George
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Palin, John Henry.


Dalton, Hugh
Kinley, J.
Paling, Wilfrid


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kirkwood, D.
Palmer, E. T.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Perry, S. F.


Duncan, Charles
Lathan, G.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Ede, James Chuter
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Edmunds, J. E.
Lawrence, Susan
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Egan, W. H.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Elmley, Viscount
Lawson, John James
Potts, John S.


Foot, Isaac
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Price, M. P.


Freeman, Peter
Leach, W.
Pybus, Percy John


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Rathbone, Eleanor


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lees, J.
Raynes, W. R.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Richards, R.


Gill, T. H.
Lindley, Fred W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Gillett, George M.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Ritson, J.


Glassey, A. E.
Longbottom, A. W.
Romeril, H. G.


Gossling, A. G.
Longden, F.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Rowson, Guy
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Walker, J.


Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Wallace, H. W.


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Watkins, F. C.


Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Sanders, W. S.
Sorensen, R.
Wellock, Wilfred


Sandham, E.
Stamford, Thomas W.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Sawyer, G. F.
Stephen, Campbell
West, F. R.


Scrymgeour, E.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Westwood, Joseph


Scurr, John
Strauss, G. R.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Sullivan, J.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Sherwood, G. H.
Sutton, J. E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Shield, George William
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Thurtle, Ernest
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Shillaker, J. F.
Tillett, Ben
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Tinker, John Joseph
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Simmons, C. J.
Toole, Joseph
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Tout, W. J.
Wise, E. F.


Sitch, Charles H.
Townend, A. E.
Wood, Major McKenzle (Banff)


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Vaughan, David



Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Viant, S. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Walkden, A. G.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Duckworth, G. A. V.
O'Neill, Sir H.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Eden, Captain Anthony
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Albery, Irving James
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Penny, Sir George


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Remer, John R.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Atholl, Duchess of
Everard, W. Lindsay
Ross, Ronald D.


Atkinson, C.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Ferguson, Sir John
Salmon, Major I.


Balniel, Lord
Fermoy, Lord
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Fielden, E. B.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Beaumont, M. W.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Savery, S. S.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Ganzoni, Sir John
Skelton, A. N.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Gower, Sir Robert
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Smithers, Waldron


Boyce, Leslie
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Somarville, A. A. (Windsor)


Bracken, B.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hanbury, C.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hartington, Marquess of
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Butler, R. A.
Haslam, Henry C.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Butt, Sir Alfred
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur p.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Campbell, E. T.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Carver, Major W. H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Colfox, Major William Philip
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Colman, N. C. D.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Little, Sir Ernest Graham-
Warrender, Sir Victor


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Wells, Sydney R.


Cranborne, Viscount
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Marjoribanks, Edward
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Womersley, W. J.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Duvison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)



Dawson, Sir Philip
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Dixey, A. C.
O'Connor, T. J.
Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain




Margesson.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to he read the Third time upon Monday next, 23rd February.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL MARKETING [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable schemes to be made for regulating the marketing of agricultural products, to confer powers upon
boards and other bodies to be constituted in connection with, or acting for purposes connected with, such schemes, to establish agricultural marketing funds for the purpose of making loans thereout to the boards aforesaid, to encourage agricultural cooperation, research, and education, and to provide for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the making of the following payments, out of moneys provided by Parliament, that is to say—

(a) payments into the Agricultural Marketing Fund, astablished under the said Act for the purpose of making loans to
1611
boards, administering schemes under the Act, and for such other purposes as may be provided by the Act, of such sums, not exceeding in the aggregate five hundred thousand pounds, as Parliament may from time to time determine;
(b) payments into the Agricultural Marketing (Scotland) Fund, established as aforesaid, of such sumo, not exceeding in the aggregate one hundred and twenty-five thousand pounds, as Parliament may from time to time determine;
(c) payments into each of the said funds of amounts equal to any sums from time to time written off the account of its assets in accordance with the provisions of the said Act;
(d) payment of any expenses incurred in accordance with the provisions of the said Act by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries or the Secretary of State for Scotland in paying such remuneration to the chairman and other members, and the secretary, officers, agents, and servants of any commission or committee constituted under the said Act, and such

other expenses of any commission or committee so constituted or of any inquiry held under the said Act, as may be determined or incurred with the approval of the Treasury;
(e) payment of an annual grant of such amount as may from time to time be determined by the Treasury to any organisation, or to the governing body of any organisation, in which organisation or body the powers and duties conferred on an Agricultural Marketing Reorganisation Commission by the said Act are vested by order of the Secretary of State for Scotland, for the purpose of meeting the expenses incurred by the organisation or body in carrying out such powers and duties.

Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 116.

Division No. 162.]
AYES.
[11.48 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
Leach, W.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Gill, T. H.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Gillett, George M.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Glassey, A. E.
Lees, J.


Arnott, John
Gossling, A. G.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Aske, Sir Robert
Gould, F.
Lindley, Fred W.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Ayles, Walter
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Longbottom, A. W.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Granville, E.
Longden, F.


Barnes, Alfred John
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coins)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Barr, James
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William


Batey, Joseph
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Groves, Thomas E.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)


Benson, G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
McElwee, A.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
McEntee, V. L.


Birkett, W. Norman
Hardle, George D.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Blindell, James
Harris, Percy A.
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
McShane, John James


Bowen, J. W.
Haycock, A. W.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hayday, Arthur
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hayes, John Henry
Mansfield, W.


Brooke, W.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Marcus, M.


Brothers, M.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Markham, S. F.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Marley, J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Marshall, Fred


Buchanan, G.
Herriotts, J.
Mathers, George


Burgess, F. G.
Hoffman, P. C.
Matters, L. W.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hopkin, Daniel
Maxton, James


Calne, Derwent Hall-
Hore-Bellsha, Leslle.
Melville, Sir James


Cameron, A. G.
Horrabin, J. F.
Messer, Fred


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Middleton, G.


Charleton, H. C.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Mills, J. E.


Cluse, W. S.
Jenkins, Sir William
Montague, Frederick


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Cowan, D. M.
Johnston, Thomas
Morley, Ralph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Mort, D. L.


Dalton, Hugh
Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Denman, Hon. R. D
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Kelly, W. T.
Muggeridge, H. T.


Duncan, Charles
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Naylor, T. E.


Ede, Jamas Chuter
Kinley, J.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Edmunds, J. E.
Kirkwood, D.
Noel Baker, P. J.


Egan, W. H.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Elmley, Viscount
Lathan, G.
Palin, John Henry


Foot, Isaac
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Paling, Wilfrid


Freeman, Peter
Lawrence, Susan
Palmer, E. T.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Perry, S. F.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lawson, John James
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Shield, George William
Tout, W. J.


Phillips, Dr. Marion
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Townend, A. E.


Potts, John S.
Shillaker, J. F.
Vaughan, David


Price, M. P.
Simmons, C. J.
Viant, S. P.


Pybus, Percy John
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Walkden, A. G.


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Sitch, Charles H.
Walker, J.


Rathbone, Eleanor
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wallace, H. W.


Raynes, W. R.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Richards, R.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Wellock, Wilfred


Richardson, R. (Hogghton-le-Spring)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Ritson, J.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
West, F. R.


Romeril, H. G.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Westwood, Joseph


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm, Ladywood)


Rowson, Guy
Sorensen, R.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Stamford, Thomas W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Stephen, Campbell
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Sanders, W. S.
Strauss, G. R.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Sandham, E.
Sullivan, J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Sawyer, G. F.
Sutton, J. E.
Wise, E. F.


Scrymgeour, E.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Wood, Major McKenzle (Banff)


Scurr, John
Thurtle, Ernest



Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Tinker, John Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sherwood, G. H.
Toole, Joseph
Mr. Parkinson and Mr. Charles




Edwards.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Ainsworth, Lieut. Col. Charles
Eden, Captain Anthony
Remer, John R.


Albery, Irving James
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Ross, Ronald D.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Russell, Alexander Wait (Tynemouth)


Atholl, Duchess of
Everard, W. Lindsay
Salmon, Major I.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Balniel, Lord
Ferguson, Sir John
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Fielden, E. B.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D


Beaumont, M. W.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Savery, S. S.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Ganzonl, Sir John
Skelton, A. N.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gower, Sir Robert
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Smithers, Waldron


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Boyce, Leslie
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Southby, Commander A. R. I.


Bracken, B.
Hanbury, C.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Harbord, A.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hartington, Marquess of
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Thomson, Sir F.


Butler, R. A.
Haslam, Henry C.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Butt, Sir Alfred
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Campbell, E. T.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Carver, Major W. H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Colfox, Major William Philip
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Colman, N. C. D.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Wells, Sydney R.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Cranborne, Viscount
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Womersley, W. J.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Marjoribanks, Edward
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd



Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Dawson, Sir Philip
O'Connor, T. J.
Sir George Penny and Sir Victor


Dixey, A. C.
O'Neill, Sir H.
Warrender.


Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — CHINA INDEMNITY (APPLICATION) BILL.

Not Amended (in the Standing Committee,) further considered.

CLAUSE 1.—Repeal of 15 & 16 Geo. 5. c. 41 and provisions as to future application of the China Indemnity Fund and receipts on account of the China Indemnity.)

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move in paragraph 1, line 21,
after the word "persons," to insert the words
"including persons who are British subjects."
This Amendment deals with the only point in the Bill to which I take exception. In other respects it carries out, substantially, the policy of my right hon. Friend the late Foreign Secretary. In order to explain the Amendment may I summarise what the Bill does. We are handing over £11,500,000 to the Chinese
Government at once and during the next few years, and this sum is divided into four parts. We are giving £265,000 to the Hong Kong University—with which I agree—£200,000 to the Universities' China Committee in London, £7,000,000 to the China Purchasing Commission, and the residue, to the extent of £4,000,000, we are handing over to the Board of Trustees in China for purposes of mutual benefit to Great Britain and China. That, shortly, is what the Bill does. I have absolutely no objection to the first three purposes. In regard to the £7,000,000 which is being handed over to the China Purchasing Commission, the British Government will have a voice in the way that money is expended because the Commission will be nominated from a Board of Trustees, from a panel, recommended by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
My Amendment merely applies to the £4,000,000, that is to say, to the residue of £4,000,000 which is being handed over to China to be expended on purposes mutually beneficial to Great Britain and China. In regard to this £4,000,000, and this is really the main point, not only is the British Government not going to have any voice or say in the matter at all but there is nothing in the Bill to say that any British subject is going to have any voice in it. These £4,000,000 are to be absolutely under the control of the board of trustees, and the board of trustees is to be appointed by the Chinese Government. To be perfectly fair I should say that in the Notes that have been exchanged between our Minister in Peking, Sir Miles Lampson, and the Chinese Secretary for Foreign Affairs, this question of British subjects is mentioned. In the Note addressed by the Chinese Minister to Sir Miles Lamp-son there is this sentence:
For the control, apportionment and administration of the above-mentioned endowment the Chinese Government will duly appoint a board of trustees in China which will include a certain number of British members.
But that is a very casual and perfunctory statement put in at the end of a sentence. Sir Miles Lampson, when he replied to that Note, merely reiterated in identical words the promise made by the Chinese Government. Surely, when you are handing over £4,000,000 of British
money "for purposes mutually beneficial to this country and China," statutory provision ought to be made for the inclusion of British members upon that board. I do not doubt in the least that the Chinese Government made that promise in perfectly good faith. I am sure they did. But Governments pass away in China as they do in this country, and in future a Chinese Government may arise which will put a different interpretation upon those particular words in the Note.
The difficulties of interpretation have already arisen in China in regard to the handing over by the American Government of their share of the indemnity. What happened was that a board was set up in China, composed under an agreement, of American citizens and Chinese citizens. Gradually as time went by all the American citizens were ousted from that board. I think I am right in saying that. At any rate, I know that when was in the Foreign Office that was the case. I do not know whether the Americans have been re-admitted, but when I was in the Foreign Office that board was composed solely of Chinese members. This is British money, to be used for the benefit of this country and China, and surely it is common sense that British members should feature as one of the provisions of the Bill.
The Bill is founded on the report of the Willingdon Committee and the subsequent report of Lord Buxton's Committee. At this late hour I do not want to trouble the House, but I could quote passages from both those reports showing that it was their intention that in the distribution of this money in China the board of trustees should consist of British members as well as Chinese members. This is the point where the Government have definitely departed from the policy laid down by the late Foreign Secretary. In the Bill which was prepared by my right hon. Friend, British members were included in the committee. Under that arrangement, the British Government were to have a voice, not only in the expenditure of the money upon railways, but in the expenditure of the money upon educational and cultural objects. I cannot believe that the Chinese Government would object to these words being inserted in the Bill. I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs whether the Chinese Government were ever asked, if they did object and, if they were asked, whether they declined to assent to this proposal? I do not believe that they would object to the promise which they made being put into an Act of Parliament. I know that the Under-Secretary may say that if we do insert these words here, they will not be binding upon the Chinese Government. I quite realise that. They will not be binding upon the Chinese Government, but I look upon them AS very valuable as a declaratory statement, and, if the terms made on these Notes and the promise included in our Act of Parliament should be violated at any time by the Chinese Government, this provision will give our Government a locus standi to make representations and protests. Without that statement in our Act of Parliament I do not think our Government would have any locus standi at all. As I have said, this Bill, in other respects, carries out the policy with which my right hon. Friend, the ex-Foreign Secretary and the late Government completely agreed, but Parliament ought not to pass this Measure without including definite words to embody the pledge given to our Minister in Pekin that British subjects should be on the Committee.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): As the right hon. Gentleman has said, the words which he desires to include, are based on a passage in the Note of the Chinese Government, which is No. 1 of the series in the hands of hon. Members and the Chinese Government have clearly expressed their intention—which we accept without any question at all, after the friendly negotiations between the two Governments—of appointing certain British members on the board of trustees. In my view, the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is unnecessary, but I appreciate the fact that he may attach importance to it for the reasons which he has explained, and, in view of the fact that he considers this to be the only respect in which our Bill can be improved, I have no objection to accepting the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. LESLIE BOYCE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, to leave out the words
"United Kingdom," and to insert instead thereof the words "British Empire."
This Bill is founded on an agreement concluded between His Majesty's Government and the Chinese Government on 22nd September last. At that date there had already accumulated an indemnity fund of approximately £3,515,000. Under the terms of the agreement and of this Bill, a sum of £465,000 is to be devoted to Chinese education in this country and in Hong Kong, and the balance, which is slightly in excess of £3,000,000 is to be allocated to a Chinese Purchasing Commission in London—which is to be constituted under the Bill—for the purchase of railway and other materials for China and those materials must be manufactured in this country. I have no objection whatever to that proposal; on the contrary, it is an admirable one. It is mutually beneficial to the Chinese and ourselves. It means that, after setting aside an appropriate amount for education, the balance of the Indemnity Fund is to be applied on the one hand to the rehabilitation of the internal transport system of China—an object which is important and desirable from the point of view of trade in China, in this country and throughout the Empire—and on the other hand to giving orders to our depressed heavy industries.
There is a further sum of slightly less than £8,000,000 which is payable by the Chinese Government between 22nd September last and 31st December, 1945, when all the Boxer indemnity payments are due to cease. About one-half of this sum is to be allocated to the Chinese Government Purchasing Commission in London and is to be applied in the same manner as the £3,000,000 which has already accumulated, namely, for the purchase of materials for China which must be manufactured in this country. I agree with that proposal also. But the other half of this £8,000,000 is to be paid to a Board of Trustees which is to be appointed by the Chinese Government, and is to function in China. That money is to be applied to objects which are described as "mutually beneficial to China and the United Kingdom." It does not follow that a single penny of that money will ever come to this country.
By my Amendment I simply substitute the words "British Empire" for
"United Kingdom." My Amendment does not apply to any part of that £7,000,000 which is being allocated to the Chinese Government Purchasing Commission in London. It applies to the £4,000,000 which is at the disposal of the Board of Trustees in China. If my Amendment were accepted it would mean that purchases of Australian hardwood for railway sleepers might be made by the Board of Trustees in China. Australia is rapidly building up a valuable trade with China, a trade which is almost entirely in commodities which do not compete in any way with the trade of this country. In the years 1924–25 the exports from the Commonwealth of Australia to China were of the value of £525,000, and in the following year they rose to £746,000. Owing to the disturbances in China, they fell in 1926–27 to £410,000, and in the following year to £310,000, but in 1928–29 they jumped to more than £1,117,000. Thus we see that the trade between Australia and China, despite the internal disturbances, almost doubled in the remarkably short space of four years. Australian hardwood sleepers are well known in China. The Kowloon-Canton railway which runs from Canton to Hong Kong is in two sections, one Chinese and the other British, and the whole of this line was built on sleepers from New South Wales. All the sleeper replacements since the beginning of that line have always been made from timber from New South Wales. This fact is sufficient proof of the suitability of this timber for this purpose. Another line which runs northwards from Shanghai is laid partly on sleepers from Western Australia, which have also been used for replacements. There is a further line from Shanghai which is laid wholely or partly on Tasmanian sleepers.
I do not wish to dwell on the serious economic crisis which is confronting Australia. Never before in the history of the Commonwealth has she been in such dire need of orders from overseas. A considerable quantity of sleepers, I have no doubt, will be necessary in the utilisation of the materials which the Chinese Government will purchase with the £7,000,000 which is to be expended entirely on the manufactures of this country. If the hon. Gentleman can see his way to accept the Amendment, I can
assure him that all those who are interested in the welfare of Australia and in the building up of the promising trade between that Dominion and China, will be extremely grateful to him.

Mr. HANNON: I beg to second the Amendment.
The case which was made out by my hon. Friend must have appealed to the Under-Secretary of State. The House is gratified at the way in which the hon. Gentleman has dealt with this question since the Bill came before the House. There are not many things on which we can congratulate him, but the process of this Bill through the House, the attitude of the hon. Gentleman towards the Bill, and the response which he has given to appeals made from this side of the House, has earned our gratitude. We want a declaratory statement in the Bill that part of the money which is recoverable before 1945, and is at the disposal of the Chinese Government for expenditure overseas, shall as far as possible, be expended in the British Empire. I associate myself with my hon. Friend in what he says about the contribution which Australia can make, and it would be a genuine gesture of friendship to the Australian people if this declaratory statement were put in the Bill, and would show them that even in small matters we are thinking of them at a time when they are in great difficulty. I would not support this Amendment if it were in any way calculated to interfere with orders that might come to this country. My hon. Friend has made it clear that his Amendment relates only to that part of the indemnity which accrues between last September and 1945, and which is available for expenditure entirely at the instance of the Chinese Government overseas.

Mr. DALTON: The hon. Members who put forward this Amendment have made it clear that it would not operate in any way to divert from this country the moneys which will accrue to it under Clause 2 of this Bill, namely, the £3,000,000 of accumulation after deduction of the education grants, and the further £4,000,000, which will be paid over to the Purchasing Committee in London. The Amendment will apply only to the £4,000,000 which will become disposable by the Board of Trustees. The Government and I personally are very glad to do what we can by way of a gesture of
friendship towards Australia, and, indeed, towards other Dominions which might be interested in this Bill. We all know the merits of Australian hard-woods and possibly if some other speaker were to give tongue, he would praise Canadian soft-woods. I am perfectly willing and glad to accept the Amendment, and in the event of the Bill passing into law, we should of course be able to assist Australia or Canada or any other part of the Empire through our commercial and diplomatic representatives in China. Hon. Gentlemen clearly realise that we cannot bind or unduly press the Chinese Government, but we are hopeful that there will be a balanced programme for the rehabilitation of the Chinese railways, and if orders for locomotives and steel rails come to this country, there might naturally be orders also for sleepers, which we hope might be supplied from one or other of the overseas Dominions.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: I beg to move in page 2, line 2, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that no disbursement shall be made under this section for the purpose of purchasing railway material until an arrangement has been arrived at about the arrears of interest, and provision made for the service, of the Shanghai-Nanking, Hu-Kuang, the Tientsin-Pukow, the Lung-tsing-u-hai, the Canton-Kowloon, and other Chinese railway loans issued in Britain and now in default.
I am moving this Amendment in order that we may straighten up the position of these railways. I have received a good many communications asking me to bring forward certain points. Proposals are now in the hands of the Government, and they have not met with the opposition of the Chinese Government; in fact, they have raised no objection whatever to the proposed arrangements. Perhaps the Minister will give us more information about those proposals. The Chinese Government will have no objection whatever to the Under-Secretary tellin us, on behalf of H.M. Government, as much as he can. It would enable us to see where we are. I have received a very interesting letter on this subject from a man quite unknown to me which I can show the Under-Secretary. This man says very truly in this letter:
I subscribed to these bonds of the Tientsin-Pukow railway and for years have not had a shilling for my interest notwithstanding certain specific contracts made on the bonds when the loan was issued.
Such a state of affairs cannot go on. Hon. Members must remember that we owe a great deal of our overseas trade to generous lending overseas. When we lend new money overseas, part of that money goes out in the form of exported goods. It is a good thing for the exporter when new money is borrowed here. [Interruption.] It is not for the benefit of the export trade that, when securities are launched here on the overseas market, those documents should become valueless. What happens? Later on, when other borrowers come here, the investor does not lend the money and the manufacturer does not get the orders. We should not sit down in this way. [Interruption.]
There is another point which I would make. How is the money going to be spent on the railways in China? Is the money to be used for railways financed with British money or for Chinese railways? Take the case of the Hankow-Canton railway which, after leaving Hankow, goes up to Canton through two or three hundred miles of very sparsely populated country. Any development of that railway with this money would be of very little use to China. It could only be for military purposes, and the money would be spent on labour in China and not on materials in this country. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how the money is to be spent—on Chinese railways or on British financed railways, on labour in China or on British material? I am not going to press the matter to a Division, but I hope that this Amendment will give the Under-Secretary an opportunity of making an explanation to the House on this matter.

Mr. BOYCE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. DALTON: I must condole with the hon. Gentleman on his loss of voice. I do not know whether it is due to electioneering activities or to some other cause, but, whatever the reason, I condole with him. I am glad he is under no illusions as to the possibility of our accepting this Amendment. This Amendment would lay down the extraordinary argument that we should keep large
numbers of Englishmen out of work and keep British industrialists out of getting any profits until a large number of persons, not all British, had received their pound of flesh in interest on their bonds. That is a proposition which the Government could not entertain for a moment. This Amendment would ruin the Bill. But I would like to reassure him and to draw his attention, since he has raised the point, to a passage in the note from Dr. Wang to Sir Miles Lampson saying that, in view of the urgent necessity, in connection with the reconstruction and development of China, for the reconstruction of the existing Chinese railways, the Chinese Government would take the necessary steps to apply a part of the accumulated funds and the payments due shortly to the rehabilitation of those railways—and I call his attention to these words:
especially those lines in which British financial interest has been principally concerned, to which lines attention will first be given.
Consequently, we have an undertaking from the Chinese Government that their programme will be devoted, in the first instance, towards re-establishing the lines to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. It is a necessary condition of a financial settlement of these outstanding claims that there must be an actual physical rehabilitation of the railways so that traffic may run.

Mr. SAMUEL: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by the physical rehabilitation of the railways? A large amount of rolling stock has been commandeered and engines have been taken away. That does not mean that a large amount of money is to be used solely for the purpose of making the track good. It must be used to replace the commandeered rolling stock.

Mr. DALTON: No doubt that will be clearly in the mind of those drawing up the programme. My point is this. If we are to say that we cannot spend the money on rehabilitation of the railways until interest begins to flow on these bonds, then we are moving in a vicious circle. We have to provide this money for the rolling stock and the permanent way, and then we shall have much more hope that the Chinese Government will be able to make proper arrangements
with regard to these bonds. As has already been stated, Sir Miles Lampson is actively engaged in pursuing this matter. We, following the principle accepted by the previous Government, have taken the view that we must keep perfectly separate the negotiations regarding debts of all kinds and the negotiations regarding this indemnity. We cannot for a moment link up these two questions together as they would be linked in the Amendment, but, although they are separate, they will both be pursued. Sir Miles Lampson, as the hon. Member knows from answers in the House, entered into conference with the Chinese representatives in November of last year, and an outline was sketched out for the settlement of these outstanding questions of debts of all kinds. Sir Miles Lampson has since been collecting data as to the exact total of claims under various heads, their distribution, and so forth. As soon as he is armed with this information, Sir Miles Lampson will return to the charge and enter into a further discussion with the Chinese representatives. If this Bill passes in its present form, that will be a very good prelude to successful negotiations on this other separate matter. The negotiations are not advanced to a stage at which I can give details. Sir Miles Lampson is actively collecting material for a formal and precise presentation of our claims. He will continue on that line, and the hon. Member may take it, as the Foreign Secretary has said on a number of occasions, that we shall give it full support and hope the result may be satisfactory. Beyond that the hon. Member will not expect me to go.

Mr. SAMUEL: In view of what the Under-Secretary has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

CLAUSE 2.—(Constitution, functions, &c., of Chinese Government Purchasing Commission.)

Mr. MANDER: I beg to move, in page 2, line 14, after the word "Kingdom," to insert the words:
provided the British is not substantially higher than the world price.
I would like to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the many bouquets thrown at him to-night from across the floor of the House, and, if he has finished blushing, I hope he will show himself as will-
ing to accept Amendments from these benches as those from above the gangway. This particular Amendment was moved by me in Committee, and I was thoroughly dissatisfied with the answer then given. I cannot see why it should not be accepted, because it carries out what was in the mind of the Government as to the way the scheme would work. The object of the whole system is to create good will for this country in China. I think this is a bad Bill and the wrong way to do it altogether, and that the money would be far better spent on education. I quite recognise that there has been an agreement between China and this country on which we cannot go back, but, looked at from the point of view of the primary object of the Bill, which is to create good will for this country in China, I think that, unless this Amendment is put in, there is a considerable danger in years to come of creating prejudice. I do not think that the insertion of these words would prevent purchases in this country of that railway material which we are all extremely anxious to see purchased at the earliest possible moment, but, if it were found that British material were, in certain circumstances, say, 50 per cent. higher than foreign material, the Chinese Government would buy other material with other money and spend the whole of this money on railway material purchased in this country.
This Amendment is necessary in order to prevent the possibility of a ring being formed by manufacturers here in order to hold up the price, knowing that there was no real foreign competition. The British price is for certain types of railway material substantially higher than the foreign price. Nothing can be worse than that the competitors of our country should go round whispering in the ears of Chinese Ministers that this was all humbug and that the Chinese Government was being forced to pay more than they would be forced to pay in the open market. It is to safeguard a possibility of that kind that I suggest that these words should be put in. If there were only a small difference in price the orders would go to this country, but, if our prices were much higher, then the money covered by this Bill would be spent in purchasing other railway material. Remembering the Under-Secretary's willingness to accept the Amendments from hon. Members on
the Unionist benches, his new-found allies, I ask him not to forget his old friends and to see whether he cannot accept this Amendment which is in accord with the declared views and wishes of the Government, and will not prejudice the spending of this money on British materials in this country, but will avoid the real danger of doing an immense amount of harm to the good will of this country in China.

Dr. BURGIN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. DALTON: It would, of course, be a great pleasure to accept Amendments from all parts of the House to-night, and the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) has indeed been an ally of mine in certain aspects of foreign policy when others of whom he has spoken have been on the other side of the trench. It would have been a special pleasure, therefore, to have accepted this Amendment from him, but he moved the same Amendment in Committee upstairs, and I am afraid that, just as he has made the same speech in substance in moving it now, I shall have to make the same speech as I made upstairs in resisting it. The effect of the Amendment, as moved, would either be nil, in which case it is not worth moving, or else it would result in the diversion of orders from this country to foreign firms. It has not been asked for by the Chinese. The Bill represents an agreement. I would suggest that there is really no ground for the hon. Member's apprehension, because, after all, the Chinese Government Purchasing Commission in London will contain not only Chinese representatives but certain very competent British representatives, who will know all the facts about prices, and whose duty it will be, as trustees of this money, to see that the Chinese are not charged unreasonable prices. As to the possibility of rings in this country, I should be prepared to agree that that possibility exists, but there are other bases of comparison that will be available to the Commission. We have, for example, an export trade in steel rails and so on to other markets than the Chinese, and we are open in those markets to foreign competition. But we do sometimes get these orders, and therefore you have a basis for comparison. The prices will be known to the Chinese Government Purchasing Commission. If it is
known that British firms are asking a higher price from China than from, say, Argentina for a similar article, the Commission will be entitled to demand that the price shall be reduced. I would also remind the hon. Member of the words in Clause 2, Sub-section (1, ii), whereby the Chinese Government Purchasing Commission in London may
so far as those moneys are not immediately required for such purposes,
that is to say, the purposes for which this money is to be used as set out in the Bill, establish
a reserve fund for the purpose of enabling the Commission to discharge similar obligations and defray similar expenses in future years.
I hope it will not be necessary for large sums to be placed in reserve for an appreciable time. I hope the whole of this £3,000,000 will be spent at a comparatively early date in British industries. It will obviously be to the benefit of employers that they should keep their prices down, as otherwise the money might be put to, this reserve. Should British employers short-sightedly endeavour to profiteer as a, result of this Clause, then the resource is available to the Purchasing Commission to put these moneys to reserve until British employers learn wisdom. There is really, therefore, no purpose in this Amendment, and I trust the hon. Member will not feel it necessary to press it to a Division.

Mr. MANDER: I understand clearly from the Under-Secretary's speech that it is not the wish nor the intention of the Government that any of this money should be used on British material if the price is substantially in excess of the world price. Am I right?

Mr. BRACKEN: It grieves me to disagree with the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Burgin), who is my representative in this House, but I think it very important that we should congratulate the Under-Secretary on his excellent speech. I am sure that, although he may have to suffer from the Chancellor of the Exchequer for making it, many Members will think that the Labour party has at last awakened to the essential merits of using every opportunity to provide work for British people—work at good
wages and work that will please the Chinese even if it does not please the Portuguese. But it is an extraordinary thing that the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) and the hon. Member for Luton, representing industrial constituencies, should take up an attitude against both Chinese and British views in this matter. They have intervened in order to send orders for goods manufactured in Great Britain abroad. It is a remarkable thing indeed that Members in whose constituencies unemployment is rife should come down and betray the interests of their constituents. There is the result of an election published to-night which gives no satisfaction to the Liberal party, and I hope that not only my own constituency will repulse the hon. Member for Luton but that Wolverhampton will also show that it objects strongly to the betrayal of the interests of its workmen.

Amendment negatived.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Payments to be made out of the China Indemnity Fund.)

Mr. DALTON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 7, after the word "London," to insert the words:
for the following purposes:

(i) To arrange for representative Chinese men and women to visit and lecture in the United Kingdom and representative British men and women to visit and lecture in China;
(ii) To assist Chinese students coming to the United Kingdom to find hospitality and suitable living accommodation;
(iii) To advise Chinese students as to their course of studies in the United Kingdom and as to other matters connected therewith;
(iv) To encourage and facilitate the teaching of the Chinese language and literature at the universities of the United Kingdom by the endowment for those purposes of professorships and lectureships, or otherwise;
(v) Generally to encourage closer intellectual co-operation and to promote cultural relations between China and the United Kingdom."

This Amendment represents the result of discussions and agreement between myself and the representatives of the Universities who raised this matter last week and the representations of the Universities China Committee, which is to receive this grant. [Interruption.] I am still confident that it is not strictly necessary, and that it would have been
possible without this Amendment for the Universities China Committee to utilise some of their funds for the teaching of the Chinese language, but in order to make it clear this form of words has been designed as the result of discussion and agreement. The Government are anxious to leave the Universities China Committee reasonably free, but we are quite sympathetic and should be very glad to see some part of the money used in this way. I may say, further, that in a general way I am sympathetic to the purpose of the two Amendments to the proposed Amendment, which my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone) has, on the Paper—(1) in line 1, at the end, to insert the words:

(i) The establishment in Great Britain of a China Institute, which shall be the administrative organ of the Universities China Committee and shall be jointly controlled by British and Chinese.

(2) in line 11, to leave our paragraph (v), and to insert instead thereof the words:

"(v) To maintain an information service and reference library and generally to encourage closer intellectual co-operation, and to promote relations between China and the United Kingdom.
"(vi) To issue publications as necessary.
Provided that at least one-third of the members of the Universities China Committee shall be Chinese subjects"—

but I hope he will not press them, because if he did, he would be extending unduly the list of specific purposes to which this money might be devoted. I can tell him for his own information that the representatives of the Universities China Committee have said that they would be glad to see developments along the lines he suggests, but they see no prospect of financing them at present. For that reason, I hope he will not press his Amendments. The hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) is not here, but were he to move the Amendments standing in his name, I would be prepared to accept them. I hope in view of the full discussion that we have had that this Amendment will meet with the general view.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, to leave out the word "representative," and to insert instead thereof the word "such."
I do so on behalf of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank).

Commander SOUTH BY: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made to proposed Amendment: In page 3, line 3, leave out the word "representative," and insert instead thereof the word "such."

In page 3, line 4, at the end, insert the words "as may seem to them suitable."—[Mr. C. Williams.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the proposed words, as amended, be there inserted in the Bill."

Mr. GODFREY WILSON: I am sure that the Under-Secretary will get embarrassed by the compliments that have fallen on his head, and I had intended and had wished on behalf of my colleagues who represent the Universities to thank him for his help in meeting the difficulties that we have had. We felt strongly that the cultural relations that exist between China and the United Kingdom could hardly be better served than by utilising this opportunity to improve the teaching of the Chinese language and the encouragement of the study of Chinese literature, and, when this Bill was before the Committee, we had the assurance from the hon. Gentleman that this suggestion met with his approval and that of the Government. Then it appeared that in the draft charter of the Universities of China. Committee the first three of these particular proposals were included in the purposes that that Committee Was to cover, but that the fourth was not specifically mentioned. We felt very strongly on this point. However, we are now perfectly satisfied, and we thank the hon. Member for the trouble that he has taken.
1.0 a.m.
There is just one point that I should like to emphasise, and that is the hope that the Universities of China Committee may realise that economy and efficiency will be best served if they use this money in a concentrated form rather than scattering it in small sums over the whole of the Universities. There are already three or four of the great universities in England where professorial Chairs of Chinese exist. Certainly in Oxford and Cambridge very
valuable libraries are already in existence. I hope they will bear in mind that it is better to help those universities where the teaching of Chinese and libraries already exist than to spread out the assistance to universities where these are not already begun.

Sir JOHN WITHERS: May I also give the hon. Gentleman my thanks. My attention has been drawn to the words in paragraph (iv) "or otherwise." It has been suggested that that is cutting down the universities, but I do not look at it in that light.

Mr. DALTON: "Otherwise" would include libraries.

Sir J. WITHERS: I would like to give my thanks to another Member of the House for assistance in this matter. Looking through the Second Reading Debate in the OFFICIAL REPORT I see this plan was raised by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) who is always in the van of progress.

Miss RATHBONE: I do not want to hinder the House, but I should just like to add my word of thanks to the Under-Secretary for the spirit in which he has met the universities. The group of universities which I represent are also interested in this matter. [Interruption.] At Manchester owing to the very small amount, of money they were able to devote—the university possesses a small endowment for Chinese—they were unable to obtain adequate professorial assistance. With the help we now hope to get from the China Committee I think the university will be able to go forward with the study of Chinese for cultural purposes and for valuable commercial use in such a great city as Manchester.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: The work the university Members have put into this Bill is admirably represented in the Amendment before the House. When university representation in this House is in danger of disappearing we welcome the good work which the University representatives have embodied in this notable Amendment. I think it is fitting that a word of praise should be paid to the university Members in this House. [Interruption.] For generations yet to be they have erected a monument in memory of themselves.

Mr. ALBERY: I wish to make a few short observations on paragraph (iv). It appears to me that the Members for the universities in framing this paragraph have succeeded only too well in looking after the special and sole interests of the universities in this matter. It appears to me the Clause would have been better if the words relating to the universities had been left out. That would not have prevented the universities carrying out their present intentions, but it might well be that it would be very desirable to give instruction in some of the schools, perhaps of a technical nature, perhaps for commercial purposes, which would be readily available to those who have entered into some form of employment, such as bank clerks, junior engineers, etc., to whom it might be a great advantage to acquire knowledge of Chinese. I should be grateful—if it is not too late—if the Members for the universities and perhaps the hon. Member in charge of the Bill could give this matter a little attention.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: In reply to the objection expressed, may I say that the work of the universities does not consist of lectures at the universities and the university colleges. They deliver a very wide course of lectures not in the buildings or in the precincts of the universities but under the auspices of the universities. I think that will cover that branch, a very important branch of their activities. If any university is approached by any responsible body of people for the object of delivering lectures to encourage and facilitate the teaching of the Chinese language and literature it will not be confined to the precincts of the university, and lectures will be delivered to people who are not under-graduates.
Apart from that I should like to join my friends in thanking the Under-Secretary for the not unexpected and sympathetic way in which he has received this Amendment. By accepting it he is doing what every Member wants to do—to facilitate and encourage greater co-operation in industrial and other directions between our own country and other countries in the world.

Mr. EDE: I would not have intervened except that we have no worse condemnation of university representation than the
manœuvres which have taken place. What are the facts of the situation? The junior Member for Cambridge University (Mr. G. Wilson) was on the Committee which considered this matter. He and the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) were the only two Conservatives which attended the Committee.

Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with this Amendment.

Mr. EDE: I will confine my remarks to the actions of the university Members on the point before us. I think I am entitled to discuss that after the speech of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Rennie Smith).

Mr. SPEAKER: And others will want to answer the hon. Member.

Mr. EDE: I agree that it is desirable that this Amendment should be agreed to, but I suggest that the universities should have discovered their objections to the Bill at an earlier stage.

Sir J. WITHERS: If the hon. Member will allow me, the mistake could not have been seen until the charter was put into our hands. The charter was put in our hands in Cambridge on a Sunday, and we raised the question on the Monday.

Mr. CAMPBELL: I sincerely hope the money will be kept in the hands of the universities, because I am perfectly sure they have the facilities for giving the education. As I am perhaps one of the few Members of the House who know some Chinese, I realise how necessary it is, when men go out to those parts, that they should have the opportunity before they go to China of learning something of that language. In all our commercial dealings it is of the greatest value that men should go out knowing something about the language of the country. In the nature of things they will not know a great deal even if they learn it here, but, if they learn a smatter
ing here, it will be a great benefit to them and to this country too. I join in thanking the Under-Secretary.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: It would be extremely discourteous if I did not rise to thank the hon. Gentleman for the part that he has played. I did raise it in the first place, and I am glad that others have followed and have been successful in getting this Amendment made. Nothing is more important than that we should have trained in this country a large number of people well equipped in foreign languages and in the capacity to go to other countries and understand the trade and languages of those countries.

Mr. SPEAKER: There is a Standing Order against either tedious repetition of one's own arguments or those of others.

Orders of the Day — CUMBERLAND MARKET (ST. PANCRAS) BILL.

Mr. Greene, Mr. Harris and Mr. Long-bottom nominated Members of the Select Committee on the Cumberland Market (St. Pancras) Bill.—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

The remaining Orders were read:, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Fourteen Minutes after One o'Clock.